I don't object to an ethical conversation, but I wasn't that inclined to head in a moralistic direction. I was more interested in the question of whether philosophers have the ability to think rationally, as I defined that above. — Hippyhead
I think your confusion centers around the blurry vision you seem to have between morality and rationality, generally speaking. — praxis
I didn't bring up the subject of morality, and was attempting to side step it, as such directions often lead to unproductive conflicts. — Hippyhead
If on the other hand one believes that philosophy has some purpose other than service to human beings, then philosophical activity would have to be measured against how well it is serving that purpose. — Hippyhead
You have a prescription for what our relationship with knowledge should be — praxis
I'd say that philosophical activity generally promotes wisdom and that's how it is "service to human beings." — praxis
I don't see them [philosopher pros] addressing a very easily understood, easily shared, dramatically dangerous example of where a simplistic and childlike relationship with knowledge can take us. — Hippyhead
Right, so what's there to philosophize about? — praxis
If I understand you correctly, you essentially believe that 'knowledge' is dangerous. — praxis
If that's your belief then the most straightforward action to take is knowledge regulation, similar in principle to the regulation of firearms or nuclear weapons. — praxis
Right, so what's there to philosophize about?
— praxis
I don't understand your question here. Expand a bit? — Hippyhead
Food is beneficial. Food is essential. But eating as much as one can as fast as one can is not.
At this point, I think a glass of wine is in order.
This is quite simple and straightforward, as you've said, so what use is a philosophy pro in this or a similar case? — praxis
Perhaps a "professional philosopher" would comment on this — jgill
Whatta I gotta do to break this thread out of Lounge jail? — Hippyhead
If you’re as serious as you claim to be I suggest that you start a new topic, arguing that the “more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous. That would be a good place to start, I think, and if done well could generate a good amount of interest. — praxis
If you’re as serious as you claim to be I suggest that you start a new topic, arguing that the “more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous. That would be a good place to start, I think, and if done well could generate a good amount of interest.
— praxis
Been there, done that already.
And, I'm doing it again, right here, right now. — Hippyhead
and this significantly relates to the issue that you've brought up in this topic. — praxis
(I'm not a moderator, by the way) — praxis
It appears that you could not, and your failure to produce one SCREAMS the point that their tossing your topic to the lounge dustbin in entirely justified. — praxis
Yes, I know that, which is why I brought it up. You're trying to lecture me, when I've already demonstrated that my understanding of these particular issues exceeds yours by a wide margin. — Hippyhead
If you can't figure it out, I will continue... — Hippyhead
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.