Topic: philosophy
started by: veistran
Posted by veistran on May 15 2002,06:23
why is it that 90% of philosphy "Debates" amount to nothing more than people saying "I'm right," or "Nuh-uh, I'm right, you're wrong." Or, arguments over the definition of the words someone uses in presenting their ideas? It's goddamn annoying, it's like "you stupid fucks, maybe if you'd just fucking ask them what they're saying if you aren't sure we could actually have a discussion." GAH....
Posted by Beldurin on May 15 2002,07:46
| Quote (veistran @ 15 May 2002,00:23) |
| why is it that 90% of philosphy "Debates" amount to nothing more than people saying "I'm right," or "Nuh-uh, I'm right, you're wrong." |
No they're not
Posted by Mhoraigh on May 15 2002,07:54
Well then start a philosophical conversation that we can discuss rather than merely complaining that such intellectual discussions do not occur.
Posted by veistran on May 15 2002,07:58
that would be off-topic.
Posted by Mhoraigh on May 15 2002,07:59
I meant for a different thread.....sheesh
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 15 2002,13:06
philosophy (n.)1. the love of wisdom.
2. a way for people to pretend they're capable of thinking.
Posted by Mhoraigh on May 15 2002,14:22
3. a personal belief (of how things work or how actions should be taken) : as in "my personal philosophy is..."
Posted by ic0n0 on May 15 2002,15:46
I do not pretend to know what is right or wrong, but I do try to live by society standards as most of the time that is in my best interest.
Posted by mqa on May 16 2002,05:32
DSL has got it.If you listen to what most of these people are actually saying, you will discover that it there is no real content, but rather just a string of words that sound good together (not like this post at all...). So the reason they cant have a debate is because there is no substance to debate about. Man PHIL 100 sucks balls..... how come there are no vomiting smilies?
Posted by Bozeman on May 16 2002,05:56
My roomate Scott would disagree. Philosophy is about discussion, and finding truth. It's a lot more complicated and hard than anyone would guess. Sure, we've gotten into arguements that didn't have substance, but that was because our definitions of certain words were different, and so we misunderstood. For example, I used the word voluntary (any choice, circumstances nonwithstanding) when I meant to say elective (because of the will of an individual, without any coersion from others) Due to this, we got in an hour long arguement. Had I known how to use the philosophical argumentative system, and used a more correct definition, we would not have talked for an hour about nothing. Philosophy is not casual, it can be very serious and important.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 16 2002,08:30
Normally I don't brag about bad grades, but I am happy to say I got a D in Philosophy 101.And yet I can easily demolish the arguments of most would-be philosophers.
What do you make of that?
Posted by Nikita on May 16 2002,18:03
The prof probably didn't like the way you think - probably too different (advanced?) for him. Same thing happened to my friend in a CS class. Brilliant, and thought the way we had to code things for class was abysmally stupid. I laid low and did it the "right" way just to amuse the TAs and played around on my own. He went off and blazed his own trail, handed the "creative" code, and failed the class. Stupid, I know, but sometimes you just have to stoop down and humor em.I also had a sociology prof who was flaming (no offense to anyone out there) and all he did for class was talk about him, his boyfriend, about the sex, and about how everyone/thing was against him. I freaked out for a day, thinking that I mistyped the class code for basic Sociology for "I'm gonna convert you to the other side!" when registering, but I checked the syllabus and goddamnit, it was the right code. We're entitled to our own opinions, not have it rammed down our throats (or any other orifice ... har har) and have our grades rely on how well we take it (yea yea shaddap)
Posted by Bozeman on May 17 2002,04:26
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 16 May 2002,04:30) |
| Normally I don't brag about bad grades, but I am happy to say I got a D in Philosophy 101. And yet I can easily demolish the arguments of most would-be philosophers. What do you make of that? |
Would be?
Most?
Not all?
Posted by ic0n0 on May 17 2002,05:02
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 15 May 2002,18:30) |
| Normally I don't brag about bad grades, but I am happy to say I got a D in Philosophy 101. And yet I can easily demolish the arguments of most would-be philosophers. What do you make of that? |
I mean not to dis you to much DSL but most would be philosophers know less than most would be political science majors, getting a degree in philosophy is like the degree for the people who do not know what they want to do, political science is like that also but to a lesser extent. People like to pretend they know the origin of everything by some advanced logical proof, but really a proof is a long list of lines on paper that doesn’t mean any thing outside of the human mind I am getting off topic here but Logic doesn’t dictate reality. I mean I love discussing philosophy but most people who argue in philosophy classes fall back to the I am right you are wrong absolute truth argument. I have stopped arguing with people who respond with that because they do not have open minds and then they accuse me of not having an open mind because I disagree with them. I also love it when people say "use common sense" and "be logical" what they are really saying is I am right you are wrong so why are you disagreing with me.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 17 2002,05:12
er, ic0n0... why did you think that would dis me in any way? I have never in my entire life even wanted to be a political science major. I got my degree in English, remember? And my emphasis was writing ffs 
Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. Arguments with people like that always boil down to "my ego is bigger than your ego."
An argument can be 100% logical. It can be the most reasonable, rational thing you've ever heard. And it can very easily be COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG because the author forgot to double-check the premises.
Posted by ic0n0 on May 17 2002,05:41
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 16 May 2002,15:12) |
| er, ic0n0... why did you think that would dis me in any way? I have never in my entire life even wanted to be a political science major. I got my degree in English, remember? And my emphasis was writing ffs Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. Arguments with people like that always boil down to "my ego is bigger than your ego." An argument can be 100% logical. It can be the most reasonable, rational thing you've ever heard. And it can very easily be COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG because the author forgot to double-check the premises. |
I know you’re an English major DSL. I was just using political science as an example of people who have no idea what they want to do and have little real knowledge so why bother arguing with them. This isn’t always the case but most of the poly sci majors and philosophy majors I have met know very little about the subjects they presume to have great interest in. The point I was making was that it doesn’t really show your intelligence to prove an ignorant person wrong.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 17 2002,09:06
ah, ok.I'm not really trying to show my intelligence by trashing 'em, though. It's just fun to see someone get all worked up over nothing
Speaking of people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, have you ever had the misfortune of dealing with a psych major? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!