Philosophy ILP style

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Philosophy ILP style

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:08 pm

You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.

If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.

This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.

If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.

Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.

Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.

If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:11 pm

Phyllo,

I’ve had EXTREME exposure not only to the spirit world but all manner of life forms.

How am I going to define green to the blind? That’s why we don’t all agree on certain things.

My greatest discovery should be all over the news...

Existence as we currently experience it (for all beings by the way)... has two STRUCTURAL problems that need to be solved:

1.) the pleasurable exclusive access problem

2.) the negative zero sum problem
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Motor Daddy » Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:18 pm

phyllo wrote:You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.


So you don't need to know what happened 100 billion years ago in order to have an answer?

phyllo wrote:Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.


Humans are huge compared to an ant, therefore you're saying they have the answers to huge problems?


phyllo wrote:If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.


So all good arguments are on the news and anything not on the news is crap? What makes you think the news is the truth?


phyllo wrote:This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.


What about a problem that has been discussed for 1 minute without reaching an answer, and then someone comes along with an answer. That answer can't be right because it has been discussed for 1 minute? Where is the line?


phyllo wrote:If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.


What if you're not convinced because you don't want to be convinced. How would we know?


phyllo wrote:Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.


Why is that?


phyllo wrote:Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.


...and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if they don't accept the answer?


phyllo wrote:If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.


If answers are proposed in chronological order, the first answer is one answer. So that is right?
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:01 pm

phyllo wrote:You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.

If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.

This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.

If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.

Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.

Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.

If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.



philosophy at ilp is like kids trying to cook dinner. we end up eating it because it's here, but it's usually egregiously incorrect about some really basic stuff.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.


Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 29890
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:28 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:
phyllo wrote:You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.

If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.

This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.

If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.

Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.

Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.

If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.



philosophy at ilp is like kids trying to cook dinner. we end up eating it because it's here, but it's usually egregiously incorrect about some really basic stuff.


You’re on ILP and you’re part of the “we”.

Really you’re just speaking to yourself.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:32 pm

phyllo wrote:You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.

If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.

This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.

If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.

Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.

Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.

If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.


We'll need an actual context of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:34 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:
phyllo wrote:You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.

If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.

This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.

If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.

Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.

Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.

If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.



philosophy at ilp is like kids trying to cook dinner. we end up eating it because it's here, but it's usually egregiously incorrect about some really basic stuff.


We'll need an actual context of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:36 pm

If I say that I know nothing, then I am a wise philosopher.

In philosophy there are no answers, there are only questions.

Facts are opinions.

There is not one reality. Everyone has his own reality.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:38 pm

phyllo wrote:If I say that I know nothing, then I am a wise philosopher.

In philosophy there are no answers, there are only questions.

Facts are opinions.

There is not one reality. Everyone has his own reality.


We'll need an actual context of course.

No, really. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Motor Daddy » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:40 pm

phyllo wrote:If I say that I know nothing, then I am a wise philosopher.


"Wise" is a term used to describe someone that has wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. If you know nothing then you have no knowledge, which means no wisdom, and therefore are not wise.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:25 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
phyllo wrote:If I say that I know nothing, then I am a wise philosopher.


"Wise" is a term used to describe someone that has wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. If you know nothing then you have no knowledge, which means no wisdom, and therefore are not wise.




To put it mildly.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9735
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:50 pm

Note to others:

Just for the record, he is not talking about philosophy in general here at ILP. Instead, he is talking about his utterly twisted rendition of my own alleged approach to philosophy here.

Let's focus just on the first one:

"You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy."

No, in regard to any number of conclusions that logicians and epistemologists have come to in regard the rules of language and what it means to know something, we have come about as close to objective answers as we may well ever be likely to.

And then there is all that we know about interactions [human or otherwise] in the either/or world. I'm not likely to invoke "the gap" here. Only to invoke the mysteries of all that we don't know about the human condition and nature going back to what we don't know about the existence of existence itself. Think the very, very small and the very, very large here.

Why on earth do you suppose films like The Matrix are so popular? It's because they explore all of the possible gaps between what we think we know about our reality and all that we may well not know about it at all. Same with sim worlds and dream worlds and arguments for solipsism.

Instead, the distinction I make here is between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. The gap between what we think we know about morality and political issues and the really big questions like determinism and all that we don't know about the nature of existence itself. How much more profoundly problematic philosophical discussions can become then given the points I raise in my signature threads here.

Then this part:

We'll need an actual context of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:15 pm

Iambiguous,

None of that is true.

In an existence where freewill is IMPOSSIBLE- you cannot ruminate about freewill.

That is a context.

Let’s take water for example. A mirage in the heat that looks like an oasis (which is water evaporating)... just because you’re tricked by the mirage and there is no oasis where you walk, doesn’t mean oasises or water doesn’t exist.

Freewill exists. If it’s impossible, it can’t even be a mirage that we discuss.

There is always context. You have to exist in order to do something. That doesn’t negate volition, will or consent.

It’s compatibalist.
Last edited by Ecmandu on Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:28 pm

We dog-paddle to the deep end of the ILP pool. We come face to face with the profound:

People are affected by their lived experiences.

People change their minds, opinions, ideas, beliefs over the course of their lives.

If you had lived a different life, then you would have different beliefs.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:37 pm

phyllo wrote:We dog-paddle to the deep end of the ILP pool. We come face to face with the profound:

People are affected by their lived experiences.

People change their minds, opinions, ideas, beliefs over the course of their lives.

If you had lived a different life, then you would have different beliefs.


No. You just wouldn’t be exposed. Nobody in the Sahara has seen a giant sequoia.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:58 pm

Again, think about this.

Here we are in a forum created to discuss philosophy.

I post this:

"You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy."

No, in regard to any number of conclusions that logicians and epistemologists have come to in regard the rules of language and what it means to know something, we have come about as close to objective answers as we may well ever be likely to.

And then there is all that we know about interactions [human or otherwise] in the either/or world. I'm not likely to invoke "the gap" here. Only to invoke the mysteries of all that we don't know about the human condition and nature going back to what we don't know about the existence of existence itself. Think the very, very small and the very, very large here.

Why on earth do you suppose films like The Matrix are so popular? It's because they explore all of the possible gaps between what we think we know about our reality and all that we may well not know about it at all. Same with sim worlds and dream worlds and arguments for solipsism.

Instead, the distinction I make here is between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. The gap between what we think we know about morality and political issues and the really big questions like determinism and all that we don't know about the nature of existence itself. How much more profoundly problematic philosophical discussions can become then given the points I raise in my signature threads here.

Then this part:

We'll need an actual context of course.


And all he can do is to come back with this:

phyllo wrote:We dog-paddle to the deep end of the ILP pool. We come face to face with the profound:

People are affected by their lived experiences.

People change their minds, opinions, ideas, beliefs over the course of their lives.

If you had lived a different life, then you would have different beliefs.


As for all his other points about me above, I'm still waiting for a context from him. Something other than, say, Communism and abortion?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:14 pm

phylo does have a point. though, generally speaking, it's hard to nail down what exactly consists. of ILP , even philosophy per se, but his non specificity is where he slides down toward a reductio absurdum.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9735
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:20 pm

Touché

There is no acknowledgement that someone scored a point at ILP.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:29 pm

Meno_ wrote:phylo does have a point. though, generally speaking, it's hard to nail down what exactly consists. of ILP , even philosophy per se, but his non specificity is where he slides down toward a reductio absurdum.


We'll need a context of course. One that allows us to encompass what we think we do know more specifically about the answers we give, given the points I raised above in reaction to Phyllo's first point.

Meno? Phyllo? Choose one. :-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:32 pm

phyllo wrote:Touché

There is no acknowledgement that someone scored a point at ILP.


More to the point, when you actually permit yourself to respond more substantively to the points I raised above, you give yourself the opportunity to score lots of points.

Only not as a Stooge this time.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43235
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:53 am

phyllo: You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.

K: this entire thread is a vast series of unproven assumptions for example,
our answers are not dependent upon the universe.. the universe does not
offer us any answers per se.. and quite often we answer the question
metaphysically, outside of the physical...which is independent of the universe...

P: Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can't have any answers.

K: size has nothing to do with the "answers"... it doesn't matter how vast the universe or how
we are insignificant specks... the "answers are not related to our size relationship to the
universe...


P: If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn't any better than any other.
This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can't be right.
If you haven't convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven't demonstrated your argument.

K: another series of assumptions... new coverage of any event means nothing...
when Nietzsche declared "god to be dead" it received no news coverage at all....
does that mean his argument is "no better then any other?" don't mistake new coverage
for something having meaning or not having meaning...the same goes for a length of time
an argument has been around...it may have been already been solved... you just didn't hear
about it..

P: Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.
Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.

K: simple not true....and how would you "know" the one optimal or rational answer?
there is nothing that suggest that we are "obligated" to accept one or more answers....

P; If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.[/quote]

K; another series of assumptions.. maybe hold too less assumptions.....

Krpotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10083
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby Meno_ » Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:12 am

I was merely differenting it from difference. If that's a point earned, more power to it.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9735
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:45 pm

Your post ... "phylo does have a point." ... reminded me how rare it is for someone to admit or say that another poster has made a good point.

I think that's another aspect of the ILP style.

I have to admit that I rarely say it. :oops:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:11 pm

phyllo wrote:Your post ... "phylo does have a point." ... reminded me how rare it is for someone to admit or say that another poster has made a good point.

I think that's another aspect of the ILP style.

I have to admit that I rarely say it. :oops:


Well, I’ve always thought you made good points, except when they contradict mine. :wink:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 9544
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Dance Floor

Re: Philosophy ILP style

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:25 pm

It's nice of you to say. :D
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12750
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users