andSo is there anything that doesn't fall into a subdomain of Philosophy?
And are all sciences subdomains of philosophy? — CaZaNOx
While your view seems to state everyone is a philosopher(please correct me If I am wrong) — CaZaNOx
Oh yes I forgot my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain and merley the topics/questions that don't neetly fit should be considered philosophical.
The question how I should code a for loop in c is not really a philosophical one. The question what the limitations of AI could be is. Despite both being techincal questions. — CaZaNOx
trying to paint me as acting in an emotional manner — CaZaNOx
It certainly seems to me that you are reacting in an exaggerated manner to my comment. And you are attributing to me all sorts of intentions and actions that I do not believe I exhibited. — NKBJ
As to the philosophical questions: I did actually respond already. I pointed out that philosophy covers matters from the political to religious to park benches.
Do I think there is anything that does not exist as a sub-discipline of philosophy? Not really. Or, at least, I don't think there is a topic that can't be made into a philosophical one if you try hard enough. And I also think people are often engaging in philosophy without even being aware of it. — NKBJ
my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain — CaZaNOx
Now, I will agree that there are some subjects not interesting enough for me personally to pay much attention to. And it sounds like you feel the same way. But in such a case, just ignore the thread and pay attention to those that do spike your interest. — NKBJ
This often leads to me reading posts but not commenting. — CaZaNOx
I hope that adresses all of your concerns, and I too hope you have a nice time — NKBJ
No. It's my second or maybe 3rd or 4th language depending on how you view it. I already have dyslexia in my first language. Some things are better some are worse in english but yeah I know/assume that there are enough mistakes in my posts. Sorry for that.(Btw, is English your first language?) — NKBJ
And I certainly don't love you all. I hate you all with a passion. Especially you. — S
Hating with passion.... :fire:
S, have I told you lately what a beautiful person you are? :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Ah! Trying to kill me with kindness! — S
Just being truthful :100:
I know somewhere deep down within you that you know that I truly love you and would be devastated if something were to happen to you. So know that in discussion we may be brutal but in heart we are one. :hearts: — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'm not really interested in beliefs alone, I like reading how people arrive at their beliefs relative to mine. There seem to be very few posters willing to explain their beliefs relative to mine, but insist only on defining them only in their own terms. This turns 60 page threads into a very draw out version of "I think this", "Well, I think this", "Oh". — Isaac
You just don't seem to get it that it is tedious to try to explain one's arguments, when the questions and objections come from someone who continually distorts what is being said to fit their own presuppositions, instead of trying to understand the presuppositions of the other, and examining their arguments in terms of those to see whether the arguments are consistent and coherent with those. — Janus
That is what it would mean to understand how others arrive at their beliefs, which is what you said you wanted to do. Understanding how others arrive at their beliefs can obviously be done without you needing to agree with the other's arguments, but without the good will necessary to refrain from trying to re-frame what is said to you in terms of your own presuppositions, such understanding will not be possible. — Janus
The fact that you think there are "very few posters..." seems to indicate that you really only want to talk with those who agree with your own very subjective approach. — Janus
is also significant that those with the most chauvinistic approaches to engaging with others are often the same ones who say things like "Kant's philosophy is crap", "Heidegger is incoherent", "Hegel is a waste of space", "Postmodernism is garbage" and so on. — Janus
Thirdly, I hear a lot about this 'consistent and coherent'. These seem to me to be pretty low targets. I'd have thought it the most basic requirement before even posting that you believe your argument to be consistent and coherent. — Isaac
In addition, as far as I recall, you and I have only engaged in the thread on morality. A thread which opened with a paraphrasing of the relativist position. Are you claiming that your responses to that have been to try and understand the relativist position from their own presuppositions, because I'm finding it extremely difficult to parse your comments in that light. — Isaac
Are you claiming that your responses to that have been to try and understand the relativist position from their own presuppositions, because I'm finding it extremely difficult to parse your comments in that light. — Isaac
As I've said before, I don't believe the relativist position, at least the one that claims that moral justification is all and only about the individual's moral judgement is consistent with the actuality of inter-subjective human life; therefore i don't take it seriously. — Janus
Some of us are dealing with crap elsewhere and we don't have the time, energy or interest to participate here in depth. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.