Philosopher's Academy

[Aeoryi she/her]

8 minutes ago, Eluvianii said:

Highest point of something. Initially applying only to things like mountains but at some point humans decided "high" means "more" and therefore "peak" started meaning "most". It's interesting though. Humans could just as easily have started looking at holes instead of mountains and suddenly "rock bottom" would mean "most". 

Questioning concepts like those is one of the few ways I can think to "prove" that I'm real. I guess I don't know what the word means either.

Prove means to give evidence for in my opinion

Do you think electricity is good or bad?

 

[Channelknight Fadran]

24 minutes ago, Aeoliae said:

Prove means to give evidence for in my opinion

Do you think electricity is good or bad?

"Prove" is a distinctly scientific term, referring to maths and physics and such. Physical science is distinct from Philosophy in the sense that it can be tested, whereas Philosophy cannot. In either case you can apply reason to form hypotheses and theories, but for Science you run tests and gather data, while for Philosophy you use rhetoric and debates of reason.

Basically, there is no way to "prove" Philosophy in any meaningful sense.

[Aeoryi she/her]

1 minute ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

"Prove" is a distinctly scientific term, referring to maths and physics and such. Physical science is distinct from Philosophy in the sense that it can be tested, whereas Philosophy cannot. In either case you can apply reason to form hypotheses and theories, but for Science you run tests and gather data, while for Philosophy you use rhetoric and debates of reason.

Basically, there is no way to "prove" Philosophy in any meaningful sense.

There is opinion polls.

Those count, right? 

Or people predicting the future being right/wrong (the worst words in philosophy)

[Channelknight Fadran]

predicting the future is not necessarily philosophical

polling opinions provides support, but can't be considered as distinct, irrefutable proof

Edited August 3, 2023 by Channelknight Fadran

[Kasimir he/him]

12 hours ago, Aeoliae said:

Or people predicting the future being right/wrong (the worst words in philosophy)

If philosophy were not concerned with what is ethically right and what is ethically wrong, what is goodness, really and truly, and what is badness; the 'meaningful' life, the 'authentic' life, the 'life well lived', the foundations of human knowledge and human experience, with what positions are epistemically well-grounded (or epistemically 'right', if you prefer) and which positions are epistemically ill-founded (or epistemically 'wrong', if you prefer), about words and their meanings, about conceptual clarity, about shedding a little light, at the end of the day, on all of these:

Then commit it to the flames, for it can contain nothing more than sophistry and illusion.

12 hours ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

polling opinions provides support, but can't be considered as distinct, irrefutable proof

Goodness. If all of philosophy required this as an evidential standard, much less a methodological standard, we can fire everyone except the Descartes specialists working in history of philosophy, and the Chinese and Indian philosophy specialists can certainly close shop now as they are not doing philosophy  

[Channelknight Fadran]

allow me to direct your attention to Plato, and his World of the Forms.

I already asked you guys about knives, but imma choose a different thing to work on:

What is a chair?

[Aeoryi she/her]

On at 9:22 AM, Kasimir said:

If philosophy were not concerned with what is ethically right and what is ethically wrong, what is goodness, really and truly, and what is badness; the 'meaningful' life, the 'authentic' life, the 'life well lived', the foundations of human knowledge and human experience, with what positions are epistemically well-grounded (or epistemically 'right', if you prefer) and which positions are epistemically ill-founded (or epistemically 'wrong', if you prefer), about words and their meanings, about conceptual clarity, about shedding a little light, at the end of the day, on all of these:

Then commit it to the flames, for it can contain nothing more than sophistry and illusion.

Goodness. If all of philosophy required this as an evidential standard, much less a methodological standard, we can fire everyone except the Descartes specialists working in history of philosophy, and the Chinese and Indian philosophy specialists can certainly close shop now as they are not doing philosophy  

All philosophy relies on a base, and those bases are consistant things. For instance, if we ask: What is a chair? We imply that we already know what a chair is and all that but we must define it. So in other words philosophy is not a disconnected realm from reality.

5 hours ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

allow me to direct your attention to Plato, and his World of the Forms.

I already asked you guys about knives, but imma choose a different thing to work on:

What is a chair?

Thing to sit on. The dictionary has a great definition of it already.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Just now, Aeoliae said:

Thing to sit on. The dictionary has a great definition of it already.

So how is a chair different from a stool, couch, or your girlfriend's lap?

[Aeoryi she/her]

Just now, Channelknight Fadran said:

So how is a chair different from a stool, couch, or your girlfriend's lap?

... lap? (Gender stuff is weird). The chair has only one intended purpose and is made for said purpose.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Fair enough. We'll go from there.

So let's say you have a wooden chair, then take a bit out of it with a knife. Is it still a chair?

[Aeoryi she/her]

5 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Fair enough. We'll go from there.

So let's say you have a wooden chair, then take a bit out of it with a knife. Is it still a chair?

Can it 

a. Still function to a decent degree for it's intended purpose?

b. Is it still made for its intended purpose?

[Channelknight Fadran]

It's just one sliver that you're taking out of a whole chair

[Aeoryi she/her]

Just now, Channelknight Fadran said:

It's just one sliver that you're taking out of a whole chair

The sliver was not made for the intended purpose of a chair. The original chair still is.

[Eluvianii he/him]

Lap isn't gendered. And that's why there's only one word for laptop.

I propose that chair is anything people sit on, regardless of the fact that it wasn't intended for that purpose. But one instance isn't enough. A tree stump you sat on once isn't a chair, but a tree stump that has been sat on hundreds of times throughout the years is.

Think the way objects in the CR gain an identity based on the way it is perceived. Sure, we don't have a CR (that we know of), but I think the idea is solid.

[Kasimir he/him]

1 hour ago, Aeoliae said:

All philosophy relies on a base, and those bases are consistant things. For instance, if we ask: What is a chair? We imply that we already know what a chair is and all that but we must define it. So in other words philosophy is not a disconnected realm from reality.

Does it?

Has anything I said, at any point, suggested that philosophy is disconnected from reality or human experience?

Do you think that foundationalism as a philosophical position is particularly interesting, or that empiricists, rationalists, reliabilists, or Bayesians are particularly interested in definitions or intuitions?

[Channelknight Fadran]

1 hour ago, Aeoliae said:

The sliver was not made for the intended purpose of a chair. The original chair still is.

So could you continue to take slivers out of the chair and have it still be a chair?

[Aeoryi she/her]

56 minutes ago, Eluvianii said:

Lap isn't gendered. And that's why there's only one word for laptop.

I propose that chair is anything people sit on, regardless of the fact that it wasn't intended for that purpose. But one instance isn't enough. A tree stump you sat on once isn't a chair, but a tree stump that has been sat on hundreds of times throughout the years is.

Think the way objects in the CR gain an identity based on the way it is perceived. Sure, we don't have a CR (that we know of), but I think the idea is solid.

The words referenced here was:

2 hours ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

So how is a chair different from a stool, couch, or your girlfriend's lap?

Which I assumed had some sort of meaning behind. This is hard to explain.

28 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Does it?

Has anything I said, at any point, suggested that philosophy is disconnected from reality or human experience?

Do you think that foundationalism as a philosophical position is particularly interesting, or that empiricists, rationalists, reliabilists, or Bayesians are particularly interested in definitions or intuitions?

Philosophy is pretty far off in the distance from reality. It is basically the definition of "off on a tangent" in terms of questioning answers.

11 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

So could you continue to take slivers out of the chair and have it still be a chair?

That would depend on the person's perspective. If you kept on taking slivers off of the chair and it functions for its intended purpose than yes. Some would consider a damaged chair a chair, and some would consider it junk or what have you.

[Kasimir he/him]

12 minutes ago, Aeoliae said:

Philosophy is pretty far off in the distance from reality. It is basically the definition of "off on a tangent" in terms of questioning answers.

Is it? Have you seen the philosophy of science or cognitive science literature?  Do you work in these areas? Do you, for instance, work in the epistemology of expertise, or of testimony or social epistemology?

Ned Block (2010: 34), "Attention and Mental Paint", Philosophical Issues 20 (1):23-63.

Ineeed, this is very far off from reality. I guess we should demote neuroscientists too - they can all go home now, because they don't do anything that relates to reality at all!

Edited August 7, 2023 by Kasimir

[Channelknight Fadran]

17 minutes ago, Aeoliae said:

Philosophy is pretty far off in the distance from reality. It is basically the definition of "off on a tangent" in terms of questioning answers.

That would depend on the person's perspective. If you kept on taking slivers off of the chair and it functions for its intended purpose than yes. Some would consider a damaged chair a chair, and some would consider it junk or what have you.

First of all: no. Not really. Philosophy is weird but not pointless.

If you had to make an objective decision, where would you say the "line" is between a chair and a not-chair?

5 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Is it? Have you seen the philosophy of science or cognitive science literature?  Do you work in these areas? Do you, for instance, work in the epistemology of expertise, or of testimony or social epistemology?

Ned Block (2010: 34), "Attention and Mental Paint", Philosophical Issues 20 (1):23-63.

Ineeed, this is very far off from reality. I guess we should demote neuroscientists too - they can all go home now, because they don't do anything that relates to reality at all!

...you are aware that  is the most passive-aggressive emoji on the Shard, right?

[Kasimir he/him]

3 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

...you are aware that  is the most passive-aggressive emoji on the Shard, right?

One must always smile because the philosophy of science or cog sci literature is probably the most saturated with scientists, even if no one who does not work in these areas will ever believe it. The sheer amount of ecologists, biologists, physicists, chemists, neuroscientists, psychologists, etcetera etcetera per capita is extremely amusing  

I'll further note that a background in science is often considered a necessity and my own supervisor has publications in both condensed matter physics as well as philosophy of science. I will never not smile when people tell me that this is "very far removed from reality." 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Kasimir

[Aeoryi she/her]

7 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Is it? Have you seen the philosophy of science or cognitive science literature?  Do you work in these areas? Do you, for instance, work in the epistemology of expertise, or of testimony or social epistemology?

Ned Block (2010: 34), "Attention and Mental Paint", Philosophical Issues 20 (1):23-63.

Ineeed, this is very far off from reality. I guess we should demote neuroscientists too - they can all go home now, because they don't do anything that relates to reality at all!

...? Okay look. If you would like to share your expertise then lets do so respectfully. I do not believe that people should be losing their jobs. I don't think I said that cognitive functions - or whatever you are trying to point out here are worthless. I would recommend you either:

a. Assume the best of things (as stated in one of the ettiquite threads)

b. PM me if you seriously have a problem that I am missing and we can solve things there. But this is not benefitting anyone with this arguement here.

3 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

First of all: no. Not really. Philosophy is weird but not pointless.

If you had to make an objective decision, where would you say the "line" is between a chair and a not-chair?

...you are aware that  is the most passive-aggressive emoji on the Shard, right?

See what I said above

The line between chair and non-chair differs between people's views of functionality.

[Kasimir he/him]

6 minutes ago, Aeoliae said:

...? Okay look. If you would like to share your expertise then lets do so respectfully. I do not believe that people should be losing their jobs. I don't think I said that cognitive functions - or whatever you are trying to point out here are worthless. I would recommend you either:

a. Assume the best of things (as stated in one of the ettiquite threads)

Thank you for the reminder  I am going to step away because I have lost all ability to assume the best of things after repeatedly watching members on the Shard and on multiple Internet sites, inclusive of Tumblr and Twitter and Reddit, trash my discipline and consistently and confidently make the most wrong assertions about it.

I don't care to correct anyone or to share expertise, and I don't consider it a problem for me to tackle anymore. People have been doing it on the Shard since I first joined, and they will continue to do so, but I will not be a party to it.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Kasimir

[Eluvianii he/him]

While I agree that public opinion about philosophy is unfairly biased, I'm not sure this thread was the best place to correct it, despite its name.

I mean, look at the discussions taking place here, the first one was about whether or not the Earth qualifies as a bowl holding soup.

We're not claiming to be knowledgeable about philosophy, at least I'm not. If I were to try and engage on a serious discussion on the matter I would only make a fool of myself.

I'm only participating in this thread because it's fun. A little "let's overanalyze random stuff" game.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Eluvianii

[Aeoryi she/her]

Here is next topic: Can stuff truely ever be random?

[Channelknight Fadran]

7 hours ago, Aeoliae said:

Here is next topic: Can stuff truely ever be random?

that sounds like science to me