|
Post by Magi on Sept 30, 2003 18:53:17 GMT -5
Before you being to throw out insults or scream "Guns are the solution to every problem!" Take a good minute to read my opinions on this whole matter. I'm inviting you to take some serious time to think about an inquisitive question indeed. What is more important, Philosophy or technology? Is one truly more important than the other, or have both influenced the very world we live in today? Take a bit of time to view both sides.
Technology has greatly improved our everyday lives. It has simplified complex processes for us and has been changing our world since the beginning of time. Through recent technological advancements, we've been able to construct phenominal bridges, reach out to the sky more than ever before, and even create an artificial heart. Through technology millions of lives have been saved, and the overall well-being of humanity has improved. But even something as good as this can have a dark side to it. Since the beginning of time, man has kept becoming more efficient at killing. Weapons with greater complexity are being introduced and older concepts keep evolving and are becoming frighteningly easier to fall into the wrong hands. Technology has also given us the power to destroy things quicker than ever before. Entire forests dissappear overnight due to excessive cutting of trees. Cars are slowly ruining the ozone layer, and the air quality in areas had created new medical conditions like asthma. Controversial cases such as the cloning of human embryos to grow into other organs. Though the majority benefit, the rapid advancement in technology is taking its toll.
Not to say technology is evil. I think that the world is better off with these technological advancements. But you can't say that the world alone was shaped by these machines. While technology has influenced humans at a physical level, Philosophy has influenced humans at a psychological level. Philosophy has made us question age old beliefs (whatever they may be to you) But most importantly, it is through philosophy that our two main modern governments (Democracy, Communism) were formed. Through the ideas of various philosophers such as Voltaire and Locke, new governments were formed. The ideas of democracy were influenced by philosophers such as these. Before the era of enlightenment, governments could often be considered unfair or tyrannical by many commoners. Philosophy has also civilized us much more and changed our views and ideas on many morals. It repeatedly stressed a question: What and if. Through these ideas, people began to think ahead more, the world became enlightened on a strategic level, and eventually these concepts influenced the outcome of many major past events. Without philosophy, would the US really have become as strong of a nation? Without Philosophy, would Napolean really would have been as successful in his conquests? Not to say, philosophy never had an effect on humans before this time. Since the beginning both philosophy and technology has existed, many times clashing with each other. Along with the disadvantages of technology, philosophy has stirred up quite a bit of conflict as well. Much like wars over religion, wars have been fought over different philosophical views. To simply put it: Philosophy starts a war and technology ends it. Do you see where I'm getting at? Both sides have strong negative points to them, now you comment on whether you think Technology, Philosophy, or both are essential and as influencial.
Type away.
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 30, 2003 19:00:10 GMT -5
This is like debating the best cheese (excluding Mozzerella & Provolone, which pwn teh rezt)
Anywho, without social advances there would have never of been technological advances. Unless someone steps away from societal norms and gets people to follow, then technological advance will never insue.
I believe that they are EQUALLY important to reaching whatever goal one has. A man can make a country but there must be citizens to fuel it.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Sept 30, 2003 23:55:12 GMT -5
First, technological advances all stem from philosophy ultimately. Without epistemology and logic, we'd have no scientific method, no science, and no knowledge. Epistemology deals with the question of what knowledge is, how we obtain it, and how we discover justification for our beliefs.
Secondly, you're confusing parts of philosophy with the whole by arguing that certain ideologies based upon philosophical reasoning represent all philosophy. Take nazism, which has a perverted notion of the Nietzschean "Overman" concept to mean a master race- this certainly doesn't make ALL philosophy bad (or even Nietzsche's writings). It simply means that philosophy was used in a bad way, and philosophy works to weed out bad reasoning.
Thirdly, technology itself provides us with no basis for how to use it. Without morality, which once against draws upon philosophy, it is equally valid to destroy life with technological advances as it is to preserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Oct 1, 2003 21:39:53 GMT -5
Well, I was making references to things influenced by Philosophy in any way. Only thing I got confused was the whole Napolean thing. It still more than enough proves my point.
IN YOUR FACE MAXY! *dances* Err, I'm not being immature again by any chance am I?
|
|
Maxy
RPG Townie
Posts: 187
|
Post by Maxy on Oct 3, 2003 17:05:50 GMT -5
It seems that I'm being called out here. I didn't want to have to discuss philosophy, since it is a waste of my time, and since I didn't want to have to be a hypocrite, but now I just don't care. I retract the retraction about Philosophy being a joke.
PHILOSOPHY IS A JOKE - GET OFF YOUR TOADSTOOL. Amateur philosopher? Give it up! Take up something like swimming instead - this way you'll at least tone your body up. That's right. I don't agree with you that philosophy plays any part in life. What philosophers dare to call philosophy is not.
Definition of Philosophy:
-Magical or occult science; magic; alchemy (old use) Oxford English Dictionary
Well that's a good start, isn't it?
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. American Heritage Dictionary
I'll come back to this - logic vs evidence.
Metaphysical: Senses relating to philosophical speculation or intellectual abstraction.
In other words, made up physics.
I'm not disagreeing with philosophy in general, just poncy philosophers who think it is important when it achieves NOTHING.
Nazism was a political tool, not a philosophy. It got Germany out of a major depression. It worked - it produced an incredibly powerful country. Just because you call something philosophy doesn't make it so.
Physics and Philosophy are completely opposite. Philosophers have the nerve to say they us logic to explain things, whereas physicists use experimental data and mathematical fact. Logic is not philosophy, it is maths. Philosophers claim to operate from logic but they don't know one jot about maths. Maths is PURE logic, undoubtedly. Logic is also limited by your understanding, whilst experimental evidence is right in front of you.
Whilst a philosopher will sit on his ass all day long, arguing with his fellows about the meaning of life, believing that just thinking about it will yield any results. Don't be naive. Using evidence is far more useful. Today we know everything we do about the universe because of physicists and chemists, not because of philosophers.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Oct 3, 2003 18:03:27 GMT -5
Hmm... This debate reeks of strong nationalism and bigotry. I think it's best someone locks this before I unwillingly turn this into a flame war. *tries to stay calm*
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Oct 3, 2003 18:55:54 GMT -5
Speaking on things you know nothing of makes most people think you a fool. Especially given you claim to know nothing about philosophy, it's rather unwise to think you know more about the subject, or its application to reality, than me.
Given that the Oxford English Dictionary requires a paid subscription to where I cannot verify it, and that no other resource I've check has such information, I doubt your claim for the time. Let's suppose that such is true though- so what? Atheism was once used to mean "immorality", which I doubt you accept as a proper use of the term. The etymology of the word doesn't support your statement either- the term "philosophy" comes from the word "philosophia", or literally, "affection for wisdom".
The definition is wrong, primarily because logic is divided into deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the basis of empiricism, and empiricism comes from philosophy (which is what the scientific method is based upon). Any person who takes an intro to philosophy class can verify such. A better definition, using Merriam-Webster, is " a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology".
It appears, like yourself using two different dictionaries, that you're simply trying to find the worst possible definitions to support your narrow reasoning. The definition amongst metaphysical you should have been looking at is "Of or relating to metaphysics", and then looked up metaphysics, because then you'd see that no philosopher would accept such a definition.
Metaphysics: 1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology (2) : ONTOLOGY 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience (Merriam-Webster)
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. 2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law. 3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. 4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.
(American Heritage Dictionary- which I cite only to show that your definition is not inclusive to the discipline of philosophy within the very definition you rely upon)
I highlighted the definitions that would be relevant to the discipline of philosophy. Metaphysics deals with the nature of ultimate reality, through such issues as the mind-body relationship, the nature of the world, material composition, intentionality and qualia, the existence of god, free will and determinism, ontology, and the nature of time. Most discussions of metaphysics rely more upon a priori knowledge (knowledge that does not appeal to experience) rather than a posteriori knowledge (knowledge based upon knowledge).
To say philosophy achieves nothing is to say science achieves nothing, as the very presupposition of science is empiricism, which derives from induction, which derives from logic, which is philosophy. Secondly, pure empiricism cannot account for everything, nor can it demonstrate certain beliefs we have as true. Additionality, pure empiricism cannot guarantee us certainty. Science cannot answer questions of morality, religion, law, aesthetics, or existential issues. A priori knowledge, such as 7+12=19 does not rely upon empirical demonstration (while one can say "I have 7 apples and 12 oranges to make 19 fruits, most people, when doing math, do not refer to a concrete object to apply to an abstract formula). In regards to certainty, because induction entails the possibility, however slight, of being wrong, it cannot bring certainty, only probable reasoning to the point it is absurd to not accept. Because we know 7+12=19 is always true, it follows we have a case of synthetic a priori knowledge (where the predicate modifies the subject), which does not rely upon experience for justification.
Secondly, philosophy has accomplished much. You rely upon epistemology to determine what constitutes knowledge, belief, truth, and justification, as well as methods of justification. Empirical justification is a form of epistemological standards of knowledge, which (surprise surprise) science is based upon. Morality is something else that everyone relies upon in their day-to-day dealings with other people (since, if I remember right, you are a moral relativist, you will not recognize such, but that is likely due to your ignorance on the matter than any actual reasoning on your part). How people ought to act and live is of great importance to people. Logic, of course, everyone uses, though not equally well. Metaphysics deals with issues of importance to many people: Is there a God? Do we have free will? Is the mind something distinct from matter, or are we only made of matter? If the latter, how does the materialist explain intentionality and qualia?
Such questions tie into science, too. Nuerobiology provides empirical evidence in the mind-body relationship. Psychology provides evidence on the free will issue. Evolutionary theory and physics are cited as justification on the matter of theism and atheism.
Just because you say philosophy achieves nothing doesn't make it so.
Unless you consider that physics originally came from a philosopher. Familiar with Aristotle?
Or that the scientific method is grounded in Socratic method, contributed by Aristotle, and popularized by British empiricists such as Bacon?
So do philosophers. Locke, in fact, is spinning in his grave right now (tabular rasa anyone?), although with a slew of other philosophers.
What is the math formula for the Law of Non-Contradiction?
Please note that you contradict your very definition of philosophy given above by stating this. Even if it somehow were true, math would still belong in epistemology, which is philosophy.
Probably because math and logic are two different things.
Math, like logic, is a priori knowledge.
Problem is, your sense data cannot guarantee certainty, and you make several metaphysical assumptions just by relying upon perception.
Lovely strawman fallacy. Philosophers do rely upon empirical evidence, but recognize the limits of it, unlike yourself.
Unless, as I said before, you realize physics began with philosophers. Doh!
|
|
Matkau
RPG Townie
Got an opinion? Thats nice, tell someone who cares
Posts: 494
|
Post by Matkau on Oct 3, 2003 23:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Oct 3, 2003 23:46:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Oct 3, 2003 23:46:27 GMT -5
That has no relevance to anything.
Wow, so you're implying that democracy was a direct idea of physicists and chemists? Fascinating!
In the sense of philosophy being non-concrete... It achieves something at a mental state. It's shaped human opinion and morality. Like I've said. Self restraint and discipline is one of the earliest concepts of philosophy. Without that idea, where would we be today?
|
|
Matkau
RPG Townie
Got an opinion? Thats nice, tell someone who cares
Posts: 494
|
Post by Matkau on Oct 3, 2003 23:54:31 GMT -5
Yes but we've all seen that ST is not "unruffled by petty provocations". To demonstrate, I give you this crude dramatization Random Townie: SleepyTemplar, I disagree with your opinion SleepyTemplar: DISAGREEMENT SPOTTED. ENTERING FULL-ON DEFENSIVE MODE. PREPARE PAGE-LONG REBUTTAL. READY THE ETYMOLOGY BATTERY. FIRE! Now I know ST is going to insult me somehow, but here's the thing: I DO NOT CARE. All you people are hundreds of miles away from you, so what you say has no effect on me whatsoever. oh no, scary itnernet man challenged my intelligence! My entire self-worth has been shattered! Save that nuts for the LiveJournal, people. Furthermore, this argument is pointless. Neither philosophy nor technology are more important than the others. That's like saying "Which is more important, creation or existance?"
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Oct 3, 2003 23:57:47 GMT -5
Yes but we've all seen that ST is not "unruffled by petty provocations". To demonstrate, I give you this crude dramatization Random Townie: SleepyTemplar, I disagree with your opinion SleepyTemplar: DISAGREEMENT SPOTTED. ENTERING FULL-ON DEFENSIVE MODE. PREPARE PAGE-LONG REBUTTAL. READY THE ETYMOLOGY BATTERY. FIRE! Now I know ST is going to insult me somehow, but here's the thing: I DO NOT CARE. All you people are hundreds of miles away from you, so what you say has no effect on me whatsoever. oh no, scary itnernet man challenged my intelligence! My entire self-worth has been shattered! Save that nuts for the LiveJournal, people. Furthermore, this argument is pointless. Neither philosophy nor technology are more important than the others. That's like saying "Which is more important, creation or existance?" All debates are ultimately pointless. Why are they argued? To try to reach a point, plus you usually learn something. This is really something that requires some thought. I'd think you would have figured that out by the lengths of many of the replies here.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Oct 4, 2003 0:50:16 GMT -5
Actually, Matkau, after seeing the Kung-Fu Master I was going to ask if I could take the position. I found it very funny, and not insulting in the least! After all, if you can't laugh at yourself, you're taking life waaaaay too seriously. In fact, I often joke that my future, after I get my philosophy degree, is to beg in the streets spouting wisdom no one will heed. However, I disagree debate is pointless. Through debate, I have changed my position on matters. Philosophy also is based upon the idea that you examine and discuss an opponent's position, to determine if their position is better. After all, if you aren't aware of the criticisms of your own position, how do you know it's the best? NOTE: Thanks for that Flame Warriors link! It was hilarious. On second thought, I want to be the philosopher! You get a cool toga and magic pixies to serve you!
|
|
Maxy
RPG Townie
Posts: 187
|
Post by Maxy on Oct 4, 2003 7:10:21 GMT -5
What does democracy have to do with the universe?
ST, we've already established that I don't know anything about philosophy, yet you still reply using your jargon? You aren't the only one how can do that, I could spout bollocks in physics jargon and no-one would be any the wiser. The reason I don't is so that anyone I am debating with understands what I am trying to say. I guess it is pointless continuing this, since neither one of us will have our opinions changed. I will not be swayed by your argument mostly because it is utterly meaningless to me.
The one point I could pick out amongst the jargon was that our observations can be wrong. In physics, when our results do not conform to our expectations, the theory is always wrong, not the data. Our observations are always correct, to the degree of accurate we can measure them to. This is why older theories such as classical mechanics are replaced by those that predict results exactly, like quantum mechanics.
Politics, ideals, morals, religions, they all die out eventually and are replaced with something new. These areas of philosophy are essentially futile. Physics is unchanging - the laws of physics are the same now as they will always be.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Oct 4, 2003 10:15:26 GMT -5
What does democracy have to do with the universe? Exactly! So you admit to it!
|
|