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
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
If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples. — Frank Apisa
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
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
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
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
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
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
That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?
ts the Nature of philosophy to disagree . The nature of a philosopher is to argue :) — Colin Cooper
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
Plain and simple, philosophers are not qualified to understand things. They have not developed minds capable of solving problems — Greylorn Ell
It is the nature of ordinary, low-IQ humans to argue. — Greylorn Ell
I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it. — Greylorn Ell
Sure, but Frank was discussing the bullshit vs normal distinction (supernatural vs natural), not the artificial vs natural one. — Pfhorrest
Published it or self-published it? — ZzzoneiroCosm
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
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. — Frank Apisa
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
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
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
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.