I would suggest that there is persistent disagreement in philosophy because agreement is not a goal, even an incidental one, of philosophy. Agreement and even disagreement are auxiliary activities, extrinsic criteria that operate precisely where philosophy stops.

Among controversial philosophical problems the one I'm relatively familiar with is the theism-atheism debate; one side claims god exists and the other side negates that belief. A key issue in this debate seems to be the meaning of "exists". Existence, its familiar meaning, is about physical objects - things we can perceive with our senses. Ergo, to use the word "exists" for a non-physical entity such as god is to somehow misuse it - importing, without a valid permit it seems, a concept from the language game of the physical into another language game, that of the expressly non-physical and so, quite predictably, we must end up disagreeing rather than not. :chin: — TheMadFool

If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples.

My guess is that there are MANY things that humans cannot sense...that exist. There may be dimensions of being right here in the space we occupy that humans cannot "perceive."

We humans do tend to be sure that we are the end-all of intelligence. But we are merely what appears to be the dominant life form on a mote of a planet circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy.

I think philosophers have nothing to offer when it comes to physics or even mathematics. While no scientist can take the theory of relativity to be 100 percent accurate, doubting it's over all validity is akin to doubting whether my hands exist or not. We can devise clever arguments, like Hume's problem of induction and try to present science as only an interpretation of the world but it will not influence scientists in any way. I don't like scientism and science will always be silent when we to understand metaphysics, ethics etc but we shouldn't downplay how successful science has been in predicting the world/nature. — Wittgenstein

I’m not questioning the success of the physical sciences, but rather highlighting how they spun off from philosophy, became a success of philosophy, and so largely ceased to be a topic of philosophy, except for little quibbles and fringe viewpoints. And how it’s perfectly possible that the same could happen for ethics. Once philosophy has done its job on a topic, cleared up how to answer questions about it, it rightly stops having anything more to say about that topic, besides repeating why you ought to go do the other thing that’s now been created, e.g. philosophy’s relationship to the physical sciences is now just to attack or defend them, and only those who would attack them still attempt to do work in conflict with them, while their defenders show why not to do that.

If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples. — Frank Apisa

Would you consider the interesting possibility that if "gods" exist, some of them created apples? And that they are therefore more natural than apples?

Greylorn Ell
8
If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples.
— Frank Apisa

Would you consider the interesting possibility that if "gods" exist, some of them created apples? And that they are therefore more natural than apples? — Greylorn Ell

They are both natural.

Not sure of your reasoning for why one would be more natural, but...go with it if you want.

I would suggest that there is persistent disagreement in philosophy because agreement is not a goal, even an incidental one, of philosophy. Agreement and even disagreement are auxiliary activities, extrinsic criteria that operate precisely where philosophy stops. — StreetlightX

Nonsense. Philosophy is all about agreement, but the field is dominated by nitwits who know nothing about the mechanics, the physics, of the subject they are discussing. They are as likely to agree on anything as a dozen teenage girls will agree on how to build an Indy car's 650 horsepower engine, or to understand the physics behind the concepts of horsepower and the principles of thermodynamics.

Plain and simple, philosophers are not qualified to understand things. They have not developed minds capable of solving problems.

They are both natural.

Not sure of your reasoning for why one would be more natural, but...go with it if you want. — Frank Apisa

Frank,
Please accept my apologies. I did not include any reasoning-- figured it would be obvious that if "gods" created apples, we know the origin of apples, and that they are not natural. Humans created automobiles, so we can figure out that cars are not natural-- they would not have come into existence without intelligent engineering. Same as for apples.

That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?

Good lord, l like your energy. I cannot be a philosopher unless l act like one. I am just a spectator. Carnap, Poincaré, Husserl were educated in physics and were philosophers too. The list goes on and on. You're not the first person to take a jab at philosophy. Feynman was famous for ridiculing philosophers and perhaps he was to some extent, right. — Wittgenstein

Yes, yes, yes!

The best philosophers were those who knew what they could of physics, beginning with Galileo and Descartes. The subjects are intertwined. A physicist not mindful of philosophy is doomed to be a shitty physicist. A philosopher who has not taken Physics 301 (calculus required) is likely to be an intellectual crap dispenser.

Feynman disliked philosophers because they were mostly fools, but was certainly a philosopher himself. That's what made him interesting. Consider his interpretation of the three laws of thermodynamics:

• You can't win.
• You can't break even.
• You cannot get out of the game.
  

Natural vs artificial is not the same thing as natural vs supernatural.

Of course not. We can define the terms natural and artificial in terms of personal experience. We cannot define supernatural without waving our hands over some bullshit pile.

Frank,
Please accept my apologies. I did not include any reasoning-- figured it would be obvious that if "gods" created apples, we know the origin of apples, and that they are not natural. — Greylorn Ell

So you think things "created" by the gods...would not be natural?

Seems to me that if a thing exists in nature...it is natural.

Too broad?

Humans created automobiles, so we can figure out that cars are not natural-- they would not have come into existence without intelligent engineering. Same as for apples. — Greylorn

I repeat...if a thing exists in nature...it is natural.

The Internet is natural...so are apples and the notion of unicorns.

That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?

Oh, that one I can handle. The correct answer to that hypothetical is: I do not know...and I doubt you or anyone else does either. Please see my response on page 1...the second response to Wittgenstein'sd OP question. It is germane to this response.

ts the Nature of philosophy to disagree . The nature of a philosopher is to argue :) — Colin Cooper

It is the nature of ordinary, low-IQ humans to argue. (Fords are better than Chevys.) Big deal. So far, philosophers are no better, no different, except for their pretensions to be better.

Sure, but Frank was discussing the bullshit vs normal distinction (supernatural vs natural), not the artificial vs natural one.

The Internet is natural...so are apples and the notion of unicorns.

That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?


Oh, that one I can handle. The correct answer to that hypothetical is: I do not know...and I doubt you or anyone else does either. Please see my response on page 1...the second response to Wittgenstein'sd OP question. It is germane to this response. — Frank Apisa

Frank,
You exemplify one of my complaints with philosophers. You attach yourselves to words as if they meant something in and of themselves, as you've done with "natural." That's what Bible thumpers do. Wastes my time trying to deal with such mindless people.

I prefer to work with the occasional individual who understands the concepts that words can represent.

As for you last comment, I did not find your page 1 comment any more interesting upon reread, than upon my initial read.

I do have an explanation for the origin of creators. It is natural. I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it.

Plain and simple, philosophers are not qualified to understand things. They have not developed minds capable of solving problems — Greylorn Ell

Okay buddy *pats*. Make sure you untwist your panties on the way out.

It is the nature of ordinary, low-IQ humans to argue. — Greylorn Ell

That's a compelling argument.

I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it. — Greylorn Ell

Published it or self-published it?

Sure, but Frank was discussing the bullshit vs normal distinction (supernatural vs natural), not the artificial vs natural one. — Pfhorrest

Cool. So Frank was discussing bullshit. Engage him, ignore anything I write. Please. I promise to extend the same favor to both of you. -GL

Published it or self-published it? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Both. My first book, published under my real name, netted about $60K back when. The only person I met who'd read it was a prostitute in Der Hague who loved the book (I'd first presented it in novel form, behind a good story. She had read the Dutch translation.) but did not believe that the nerd with a limp dick in front of her (she was female, but without charm) could have written it. So I spent $20 and did not get laid.

Cool. So Frank was discussing bullshit. Engage him, ignore anything I write. Please. I promise to extend the same favor to both of you. -GL — Greylorn Ell

You were replying to Frank before. I was just pointing out that you reply was about something different than he was talking about.

Is this the thread where we are dropping shit to philosophers and philosophy? I was getting ready to dump a good one, but somehow lost interest! :blush:

I do have an explanation for the origin of creators. It is natural. I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it. — Greylorn Ell

Perhaps it did...but you don't realize it did. They may have been charitable and considered it satire.

If you think YOU have an explanation of "the origin of creators" that has not found its way into "the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it"...maybe the problem is "the explanation" rather than those intelligent minds.

Perhaps it did...but you don't realize it did. They may have been charitable and considered it satire.

If you think YOU have an explanation of "the origin of creators" that has not found its way into "the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it"...maybe the problem is "the explanation" rather than those intelligent minds. — Frank Apisa

That was my first thought. My current presentation is based on that assumption, so I've modified it accordingly from the previous published version. One problem is that lots of people are speed readers, and they are incapable of understanding unique concepts. Likewise, normal readers. I'll try some preliminary introductory material on this forum and see what happens. I anticipate, from previous forum experience, that any topic I try to present via OP will be sandbagged. If that happens, I'll quit.

Sandbagging new (or supposedly new) ideas happens a lot.

I've had it happen to me on dozens of occasions.

Not actually a lot "new" in this world.

Try not to put the entire meal on the table at one time, Greylorn.

Pick out the single most important stand-on-its-own element**..and let a few of us hash that around.

**Even if that one element is just an overview, tiny in scope, so that we know where you want to end up.

I've had it happen to me on dozens of occasions.

Not actually a lot "new" in this world.

Try not to put the entire meal on the table at one time, Greylorn.

Pick out the single most important stand-on-its-own element**..and let a few of us hash that around.

**Even if that one element is just an overview, tiny in scope, so that we know where you want to end up.
3 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Frank Apisa

Frank,
Thank you. Experience has shown that introducing the core ideas at the outset is worthless. But WTF, here they are: The universe, and self-awareness, arose from the inevitable collision of two absolutely simple spaces, each manifesting a single fundamental force, within a third space containing both of them.

So you know where I'm going, and I've already dumped the meal on the floor. Perhaps you'll understand why I think it advisable to work up to that concept. Perhaps, with assistance, sandbaggers can be discouraged. I'll get to work on a new OP.

Philosophy, as it stands, eats of any leftovers that science might throw at it. Thus the king, or rather the queen, is naked, believing to be in the driver's seat, but in reality it plays second fiddle, if any at all. But philosophy and science have been apart for quite some time now, it makes you wonder whether they were even together at some point. They are like married old couples that stick with each other out of habbit or out of fear, or for any reason regardless, other than the one that brought them together in the first place. I believe that it's a shame, really, and that if we want to learn and unlock the secrets that both science and philosophy hold dear and not go around chasing our own tails with guesses in some cold play, we should, like good scientists that we are, go back to the start, something that is extremely difficult of course, but no one ever said it would be easy.



And so, it doesn't reallly matter why all philosophers disagree with each other all the time, since their point or points of disagreement are hetero-determined by something that is not philosophy, science in this case.

I came across a brilliant paper published in a philosophical journal. I was thinking of the reasons behind philosophical disagreements and why there isn't some sort of consensus among philosophers regarding philosophical ideas. For anyone interested, l have attached a link to the article written by Prof Christopher Daly. — Wittgenstein

This problem has always fascinated me. The answer, I believe, lies in the complexity of language, the complexity of the human condition, psychology of belief, causes versus reasons for belief, intelligence (ability to reason), etc, etc. I don't think there is a way to solve this in the near future, maybe in the distant future. if we gain the ability to communicate mind-to-mind, it might clear up some of the fog.

The author presents his reasons as to why there is a persistent disagreement among philosophers and l think this view is right. I noticed this too often. The author contends that the methods of philosophy are problematic. — Wittgenstein

The question is what is philosophy supposed to do? I don't think philosophy should be like science since science is essentially about solving physical and practical problems.

I don't think the methods of philosophy are problematic. I think philosophers are problematic. Human limitation and the human condition cause people to make errors, or to use emotion rather than reason or make assumptions that other people don't make.

Why would you publish a paper stating that you agree with everything Professor X said?!

The scientific method, eventually, forces agreement in a way that the philosophical method cannot. Physical evidence is public, and appears (more or less) the same way to everyone that looks at it. This typically forces agreement, eventually. Even people who don't want to believe what the evidence suggests are convinced. Philosophical theories have no physical evidence that settles them one way or another, indeed that may be what makes them a philosophical theory and not a scientific one. There are still standards that make some philosophical theories better than others, but they are not as public or clear-cut.