 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)recycle EleminoP ...and 132 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618643 Today 2 Topics 127849 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I love you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the philosophers,iam one |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Im not a communist..... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philos with their visions of world makes that the other peoples no-philos change the world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philosophy < nukes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's not true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
theres nothing wrong with being a communist! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fascists are totalitarian egoists, and communists are totalitarian altruists....which one is worse? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
petition to ban monoid |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh yeah thats typical. let them fascist mods with their west fed views and their fascist idiologys ban the poor communist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
communism is cool, as long as it doesnt shit all over personal freedoms and become autocratic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I would say the STATE gurantees the freedom of the individual |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
which STATE are you from, anyway? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
UTOPIA |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
utopia planitia is on mars |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
utopia is vulnerable and insecure place -where ideas grow and die- reality is fun and evolutions to higher realms |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
capitalism is currently too strong and powerful for anything to change. once we destroy ourselves, then we can have our utopia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there are new forms of capitalism evolving (or will evolve). forms where the happiness and creativity of the individuals are considered as 'capital' (and with that the environment, which is a pre-requisite for our health). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Have you read them ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this nice philosopher of every day became near me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dinsdale? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahah your avatar is wicked! I've just spent two precious minutes of my life looking at it. Nacmat? Hahah |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philosophy is what you study at college if you are too crap for everything else and intend to work stacking shelves at the nearest supermarket for the rest of your life |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What a load of bollocks. The vast majority of people who get a degree from university, no matter what it is don't end up stacking shelves. Unless you are wanting to do a specific profession, such as being a doctor, most employers don't care what degree you have got as long as it is of a good standard from a good university. With a philosophy degree you can enter many excellent jobs, so... fuck you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Whats the diffrence between theology and philosophy? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well it depends what kind of philosophy you study... If you agree with AJ Ayer then philosophy is wholly critical and analytical, the handmaiden of science and produces definitions in use. It is not metaphysics, nor reality as a whole. Theology discusses the attributes of God and nature, which according to Ayer is metaphysical and therefore insignificant and contrasting to philosophy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wasnt HEGELS philosophy metaphysical? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he got it wrong. Ayer's where it's at |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"philosophy is what you study at college if you are too crap for everything else and intend to work stacking shelves at the nearest supermarket for the rest of your life" thats me!!!!! and how are you supposed to change a world if you dont understand it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bah |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it's what you study if you love it. now shut up and die. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're into logical positivists? they mostly suck ass and the few that are left are easy to piss off to the extent that they may want to kill you... also, verificationism is the weakest meaning theory ever! Read some Wittgenstein. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
geology is what you study at college if you are too crap for everything else and intend to work stacking shelves at the nearest supermarket for the rest of your life |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a geologist |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, without the ideas, no one would have directions. Philosophers and leaders are useless without eachother. A philosopher to point the leader in the right direction, or any direction for that matter. A leader to direct people upon the philosophers ideas. The artists create changes to their environments as a reaction to their environments The philosophers synthesise understanding with the inspiration brought about through the artists The leaders direct people who build and adapt the environment The artists create changes to their environments as a reaction to their environments Thats it in a nutshell. There is a lot more to it than that, but I am not going to get into the producers, consumers and other small factions and sub-cycles. Its an economy of change. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
URGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Wittgenstein is shit! You and I need some hardcore philosophical arguments! :D So... when you're ready, email me! Wittgenstein is full of shit. He says stuff like.. the most important questions are metaphysical. We just don't know the answers to them because we can't see above our limit of knowledge to find them. If we can't see beyond it Mr. Wittgenstein how do you know that the answers are there? OH DEAR! I think someone is begging the question! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm.. well, right now I was talking about the use theory of meaning which beats any verificationism theory into a pulp. also, that's a bit weird reading of mr W you have there, I think... you've probably read it like a logical positivist would.. and you'll soon enough figure out why there aren't that many of them left. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just found this on wikipedia. Do you think that this is true? Logical positivism is perhaps best known for the verifiability criterion of meaning, which asserts that a statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable. One intended consequence of the verification criterion is that all non-empirical forms of discourse, including ethics and aesthetics, are not "literally" or "cognitively" meaningful, and thus belong to "metaphysics". If this is where you find your problem with Ayer then it can easily be refuted. Ayer actually states that something is only significant if it can be experienced through sense data OR IS A TAUTOLOGY. This can be seen in an extract taken from P17 "Language, Truth and Logic", when Ayer is writing about somebody talking about God. "And if he admits, as I think the author of the remark in question would have admitted, that his words were not intended to express EITHER A TAUTOLOGY OR A PROPOSITION WHICH WAS CAPABLE, AT LEAST, OF BEING VERIFIED, then it follows that he has made an utterance which has no literal significance even for himself." The majority of critics of Ayer's verification principle either state that he claims that something is only significant if it is empirically verifiable alone, or if it is a tautology alone. If this were true then this would obviously cause problems, as it would fail to account for either analytic or empirical truths.. but it is not. As I said in my last post.. Wittgenstein stated, "in order to draw a limit to thinking, we should have to think both sides of this limit." This is a self defeating claim, because if it is possible to know only what lies within the bounds of sense-experience, how can Wittgenstein be justified in asserting that real things exist beyond these boundaries and how can he tell where these boundaries are unless he succeeds in passing them himself? Which, he has just stated is impossible to do. I really would be interested to read why you think this verification principle fails. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wrote that last post before I saw your reply to my first one. ps, sorry if I seem to be taking this all a bit seriously, I'm practising for my exam on the 23rd :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the verification principle fails in that it itself isn't capable of being verified and is thus rendered meaningless. Using "literal" is also silly, as there is no such thing as literal meaning. Also, sentences that are meaningful (you understand what the sentence means) are discarded as not being meaningful.. the standard textbook-ish examples are such things as "all things have just doubled in size" and "the universe was created ten seconds ago complete with memories and everything you see around you now"; you grasp the meaning of the sentence, which makes it meaningful, but by the verificaion principle it isn't meaningful and you still have no way of testing it empirically, nor could you in any way concieve of a way to test it. Another thing is that you have to actually understand what a sentence means to be able to decide whether or not you can test it empirically, and if you find that you can't test it empirically, it isn't meaningful, which makes it strange that you understood the sentence in the first place. That a sentence needs to be tautology or empirically verifiable for it to make a significance for a person is also very very false; how do you verify an order? Or a question? They aren't tautologies either, but it is very easy to prove that most such speech-acts actually have an impact on people; a soldier acts on the order, a person answers the question, etc. I believe Wittgensteins point in that sentence you're paraphrasing there (though I've never read it in its context) is that it is indeed futile to draw a limit to thinking, not that you have to look at both sides of the limit; he's saying that you can't look at both sides of the limit, so you don't need to bother yourself with it, just think about what you can think about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The verification principle is not empirically verifiable but it is a tautology and so does fulfill its own criteria. It is a tautology because it passes the test of intersubstitutionality. Empirically verifiable/tautology can be substituted in a sentance for the word significance, whilst retaining the exact same meaning. Ayer states that something is literally significant if its propositional.If it is non propositional because it is not empirically verifiable or a tautology then it is merely a voicing of opinions,which can be called emotive significance. Ayer doesn't talk about things being meaningful,he says whether something is significant or not.This doesnt mean whether we understand something or not.It means whether it is actually saying anything significant.He means that we cannot talk about something that we cannot verify.I dont really understand your examples or this: "you have to actually understand what a sentence means to be able to decide whether or not you can test it empirically, and if you find that you can't test it empirically, it isn't meaningful, which makes it strange that you understood the sentence in the first place." Could you try and explain it further for me? Something has to be a tautology or EV for it to be LITERALLY significant. If it is neither of these things then it can remain emotionally significant to that person but not literally significant. When we state something that is not EV or T it may feel significant to us but all we are actually doing is stating opinions for or against a subject. For example, when someone makes an order to a soldier, they are not saying anything literally significant, all they are doing is trying to evoke a response from the other person. Ayer accepts that this is happening but they are not actually SAYING anthing except "hoorah for x" or "booo for y" I haven't paraphrased Wittgenstein's point, that is why it was in quotation marks. That is what he actually said in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in the preface, I think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, in your first statement. You are using the criteria of the verification principle to state that it, itself fails. This is a self refuting argument, because if your conclusion is correct, that the verification principle fails, then you cannot use its criteria, in the premisses to establish that it fails. If you do not accept the criteria of the verification principle to be correct then you cannot use them to destroy the very thing that they belong to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree with monoid's initial statement. the goal is not the interpretation itself, but the effect that it will have. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You can't do that if all that you are doing is talking about the language. The philosopher as an analyst is not concerned with things but with language. Locke on "ideas", Berkeley on "the material world" and Hume on "Causation" are all concerned with an analysis of language. As the handmaiden of science, the job of philosophy is to make sure that the sciences maintain integrity in how they say what they say and define what they define. They are there to keep science significant and it is the scientists duty to do the "changing" not the philosophers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course, but sometimes i have the feeling philosophical discussion ends in rhetorical mumbo jumbo, forgetting its initial goal: as you said, maintaining sciences' integrity. and in those situations philosophy tends to get counter-productive. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'll take this first. My argument isn't self-refuting, I was merely pointing out that the verification criteria itself is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't see how the verification principle is a tautology nor do I see why the fact that something is a tautology makes it "literally" significant... Everything either just doubled in size or it didn't double in size. That's a tautology (P [or] P) If everything just doubled in size, everything just doubled in size. That is too (P --> P) Also, what is the difference between literal and emotive significance? I think he's just trying to wiggle out of the problems the original verification principle got itself into by using different words and making a distinction which isn't really a distinction.. He's still harping on that old logical positivist tune "don't talk about stuff we can't empirically verify!!!" which is just completely unreasonable; laws, economic systems, even scientific paradigms would be void.. the only thing people would be able to talk about would be how they themselves experienced something.. if even that! my example is about the original verification principle, that something has to make a difference (you have to be able to test it empirically) to be meaningful.. when you have a sentence that says something that isn't empirically verifiable, you can't decide if it is or isn't empirically verifiable without actually understanding the sentence first (meaning that it is meaningful even to the verificationist trying to say that it isn't meaningful) so that you can see if you can actually test it or not; if the sentence isn't meaningful, you wouldn't be able to know that it wasn't. Also, I think I used the word paraphrased without thinking (or checking dictionary).. I meant quoted, and my point is still the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know its not usually true, seems like it round here though. theres about 20 people at my college doing philosophy, and none of them are going on to university, they are all getting lame low-paid jobs in the town. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what's a college compared to a university? the english and american school-systems never make any sense... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
