Top Ten List

It gave us all of them, even the bad ones, like Wittgy. Plato’s Allegory of the cave is a classic, right? What the fuck was that even about, except that philosophers should rule everyone else? Philosophers like, um… Plato! He was talking about exactly nothing that actually exists. Famous guy, though.

Oh, batman. National Football League, which has got nothing to do with football is you live anywhere except the US, I guess.

Philosophy does not construct basic knowledge. It can help us answer the question, “If I say this, what else am I committed to?”

I see. Thanks for calling me batman. :mrgreen:

To me it does. Philosophy helps us to ask proper question and as you said help us to answer the question. It is about the way you are approaching the reality. It is the way. The rest is the details, science, art, ethic, etc. which each sits on the base, philosophy.

I gotta ditch this fucking autocorrect.

So it’s a sucker bet just in terms of justifying a particular moral theory, but you’re not throwing it out in other contexts?

What about epistemology as the attempt of knowing what we are saying?

Good list no doubt but its more fun to bicker. I will bicker with this. I think science isnt about consensus but about proofs that dont rely on consensus.
Its about being able to repeat an experiment and get the same result. A person by himself can conduct science and create a whole valid framework with which no other soul ever agrees.
There wasnt any consensus when Copernicus formulated things from experimenting and logical operations and I would really not agree that only when idiots finally came around to the facts only then it became science.

Science is made by hermits, away from the pointless distractions of being agreed or disagreed with.

Consensus was when the great Holy Men gathered in the st Peter and sat around voting unanimously that the Earth is flat.

That would seem to be a part of it, but if that’s the whole package, then we are not learning, via science, much about anything but what we think. Like we can’t learn about cane toads, but we can learn what we are saying about cane toads. Making cane toads equivalent to unicorns.

What does this mean, you mean that for example, Newtons ideas had origin in Archimedes, Copernicus, Keppler, etc?
If so yes, I think all thought and all language has some relation to something that happened in the past.

It never occurred to me that there are phlosophers who tried to avoid having some roots for their thinking but maybe youre right, this could account for a lot of idiocies that have occurred.

(Be it idiot or idiocy, thing or event)

I think cane toads arent in the domain of epistemology, period. Edit - well unless ontology and epistemology are synthesized like in a certain dangerous philosophy out there.
They are in biology and possibly ontology. But a cane toad isnt a piece of knowledge primarily unless one goes to insane lengths to assert that there is nothing but text.

Does this mean it is not about sex?

Okay, pick one. Let’s flesh this thing out.

This was already answered with the thing about jazz.

“There wasnt any consensus when Copernicus formulated things”

There sure was a whole deal of consensus around everything Cop used to arrive at his conclusions, to even know what to measure for.

Like Galileo. He designed all sorts of experiments out of vanity, but he never actually performed any of them. He already knew they would work.

I don’t believe Faust means just any old consensus. He refers rather, I believe, to the very possibility of consensuality. It comes with a sort of clause: “if you’re being honest, then”

Unavoidable consensus, say.

Do things fall into eachother?

Yes. Yes they do fall into eachother.

Science.

These are consensi rather than facts, because really, to establish a fact, epistemology needs to work. Like what IS the thing really? Fruitless question 99.999999999% of the time. Only time I ever seen it not be was when Will to Power was postulated. And it is an answer to the only askeable question in terms of what is: what is ANYHTING?

And you can’t infer anything from it really. And generally follows the list heere, except the language thing which on its own doesn’t stand. Philosophy being about language. That’s like saying green is about color. I mean yeah, ok…

But Faust’s task is generally about peeling the dirt from philosophy, separating philosophy from headless chickenry, and in that sense it is correct. Philosophy is only about postulating, never about giving or to rip directly from the tree of truth, so to speak.

I say this, you check it against your own log, and then you decide. It’s never I say this and then so this.

I say this and then so this has never occured, and as an event was only ever described in Jewish lore regarding what God did to people. But the wole lesson from Judaism is that when that happens, it is simply not communicable or even really possible except when allmighty God himself, to whom nothing is impossible etc., does it to you.

And even THEN God is never really described as doing that. It is sort of implied that if he wanted to and humans were 1000000 smarter he could, but even to Moses he gives laws and things, never THIS.

“I saw God today.”

“Really?! What did he say?!”

“He said brush your teeth every morning…”

“Huh. I guess he meant that philosophy is only about language.”

Back to science: the reason it is consensuality rather than fact is that it is an opinion and measurement of a POSTULATION, not a thing.