View Full Version : Philosophy 101
Peace,
Socrates,
470?- 399 b.c.e.
Born in athens during the cities golden age, lived there his entire life , with the exception of a military tour of duty. He married and had three children. Skilled as a stone mason.
Philosophy however was his calling , as he would walk the streets of athens and pose simple questions to people as to start a dialouge that would induce critical thinking. IE. What is Justice? What is piety? , What is good? , What is right? etc etc.
He wanted to know what others knew about these concepts, more often then not it became clear that they knew very little. In this process , which was inspiring the youth but infuriating the establishment and many others , he enlightened his listeners to the importance and complexity of philosophical questions.
EVERY THING MUST BE OPEN TO QUESTION--
His trial and demise are well known as are the accusation and bogus charges. Most famous for the socratic method and redefintion of what philosophy is ,the father of WESTERN philosophy summed it up as follows:
GOOD IS KNOWLEDGE, the greatest cause of evil is ignorance, (to be unaware, or devoid of truth), and the only way to live a worthwhile life is to critically assess it.
"THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING"
Peace
Peace,
Scorates is hailed as the father of western philosophy.
Generalized by the statement "the un examined life isnt worth living". Reknown for his ability to lead the most lofty of thinkers to their philosophical doom with logical critical thinking. Socrates took the age old question of man and gave them a new meaniing and method to derive "truth" through question and answer and critical examination.
Having been found guilty by the jurors of Athens for corrupting the youth of the city , he was sentenced to death or banishment. On his principles he voluntarily took hemlock(poison) rather then leave his beloved city.
"Good IS knowledge, the greatest cause of evil is ignorance (unaware,lack of knowledge) the only way to live a worthwhile life is to critically assess it." "The unexamined life is not worth living"
The socratic method goes like this...
1) Identify a problem or pose a question.
2) Propose a hypothesis.
3) Derive a test implaction.
4) Perform a test.
5) Accept or reject the hypothesis.
Logical impossibilty, law of non contradiction, causal impossibility.
Philosophy "begins in wonder" (Plato) , wonder about the universe ,its contents, and our place in it.
What is the universe?
Why are we here?
Is there a God?
Do we have a duty to help others, or only the obligation not to harm them?
Unlike most questions they can not be answered by scientific investigation. To say that something is unknowable is to already have answered the question about the nature of knowledge.
Philosophical questions are unavoidable because any attempt to avoid them requires taking a stand on them.
" To ridicule philosophy is to philosophize" Pascal
The desire to know the truth-- the love of wisdom--
is only one motivation for doing philosophy, however. The desire to lead a good life is another.
Actions are based on beliefs , and actions based on true beliefs have a better chance of success than those based on fallacy or false beliefs.
" The discovery of what is true, and the practice of that which is good, are the two most important objects of philosophy." Voltaire
For example, many in the west believe that the world contains physical objects , that our senses can give us knowledge of those objects, and that ourselves are legitimate objects of concern. (aposteriore)
(To simplify if you've seen the movie "the matrix" )
Many in the east , however ,deny all three of these claims. Consciousness is the only reality, mystical experience is the only source of knowledge, and belief in the existence of self is the root of all evil.
"Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is."
-Bhagavad Gita
If we have not examined our philosophy, not only may the quality of our lives suffer, but so may our freedom.
Peace,
The Scientific, and Socratic method are essentially the same,
1 Identify a problem or pose a question;
"How is it possible for event X to occur?
"What makes X occur?"
"What is the causal relationship between X and Y?"
2 Propose a hypothesis.
"Specify the necessary,or sufficient conditions, for the event's occurring."
"Try to identify the features shared by all, and only those things that cause X."
3 Derive a test implication.
Ask:
"What if the hypothesis were true?"
"What does it imply?"
"To what does it commit us?" -i.e
"If hypothesis H is true, then event X should occur in this situation."
4 Perform the test.
Produce the situation in:
"thought experiment"(philosophy) or
"laboratory" (science) ,
then see if it applies in the "field"(sci) or "situation"(philo).
5 Accept or Reject the hypothesis.
If the event occurs in the situation specified , there is reason to believe that the hypothesis is true.
If it doesn't apply there is reason to believe that it is false. Revise hypothesis or reject it.
Unlike science, however, philosophy explains how it is possible for concepts to apply, rather than how it is possible for events to occur.
That is to say that science uses causality and philosophy uses logic.
Peace,
Logical versus Causal possibility:
Something is logically impossible,
if and only if it violates the law of non contradiction, (nothing can have and lack a property at the same time.)
Logic is "the study of the laws of the laws of science" -Gottlob Frege
The laws of science must obey the laws of logic.
But the laws of logic need not obey the laws of science.
In other words, something can be, logically/theoreticallypossible, even though it is causally/naturally impossible.
Something is "causally impossible" if and only if it violates the laws of nature.
A cow jumping over the moon for example is a causal impossibility because it violates several natural laws concerning mass, force, acceleration, and gravity among others. Still it is not a logical impossibility, because the notion of a cow jumping over the moon does not involve a logical contradiction.
Peace,
The Possibility of the Impossible.
1 THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a material object to have a mind.
2 THE PROBLEM OF PERSONAL IDENTITY
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a person to change yet remain the same person.
3 THE PROBLEM OF MORAL RELATIVISM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for there to be absolute moral standards.
4 THE PROBLEM OF SKEPTICISM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for there to be knowledge.
Science with out epistemology (-in so far as it is unthinkable at all-) is primitive and muddled.--Albert Einstein
Peace
Peace,
6 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for there to be evil in a world created by an all powerful, all knowing, all good, being.
Making our belief system consistent is not an easy task , for not only do our individual thoughts and actions depend on the truth of certain philosophical beliefs, but so do many of our institutions. If those beliefs in our "little hobby" turned out to be false, the institutions that rely on them would have to be radically altered or even abolished.
Peace
Peace,
5 THE PROBLEM OF FREE WILL
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a causally determined action to be free.
To deny the freedom of the will is to make morality impossible-- James Froude
The philosophy of one century , is the common sense
of the next.-- Henry Ward Beecher
What we know here is very little, but what we are ignorant of is -immense.-- Pierre Simon Laplace
Peace
Peace,
THE MIND BODY PROBLEM
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a material object to have a mind.
Many philosophers and scientists have held that the mind is nothing but the brain.
Co -discoverer of the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, in his book "The Astonishing Hypothesis"
The astonishing hypothesis is that you ,your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.
The idea that we we are purely material beings was proposed more than 2500 years ago by Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus.
If Crick and Leucippus are correct in their beliefs, then most religious believers are incorrect. What's more , if the mind is a physical thing , it should be possible to construct one. Scientifically it appears that this feat is now only a matter of time.
An idea that is not dangerous. is unworthy of being called an idea at all.-- Elbert Hubbard
Please reply to TE (thought experiment) MIND BODY
Peace
Peace,
THE PROBLEM OF FREE WILL
The philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible for a causally determined action to be free.
It is commonly believed that we can be held responsible only for those actions that we freely perform. If we are forced to do something against our will, we aren't to blame. But if every event has a cause, then it would seem that nothing we do is up to us, for all our actions are determined by forces beyond our control. The doctrine of universal causation, seems to be inconsistent with the notion of free will.
In recent years this view has been most forcefully argued by late, Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner, his claim that the belief in free will is a pre-scientific belief left over from the days when we believed that every object contained a spirit. According to Skinner, we are robots that are programmed by our environment.
Although Skinner believes that our behavior is determined primarily by how we are brought up or nurtured, other scientists believe that it is determined primarily by our genetic endowment or nature.
Biologist Richard Dawkins " We are survival machines- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."
So Dawkins shares Skinners belief that we are robots. He simply has a different view about where our dominant program comes from. If either of these scientist are right, then a good number of our social institutions need to be overhauled.
Some psychologists have argued that the use of behavioral reconditioning techniques should be much more widespread than it currently is for example;
James McConnell writes ...."the day has come when it should be possible to achieve a very rapid and highly effective type of positive brainwashing that would allow us to make dramatic changes in a persons behavior and personality....We should reshape our society so that we would all be trained from birth to do what society wants us to do. "
Please reply to TE FREE WILL
thanks
Peace
Peace,
The problem of personal identity
The belief that people retain their identity over time is a cornerstone of our legal system. If you sign a thirty year mortgage contract, for example, you will normally be expected to honor the terms of that contract even though your body and your memories will change considerably during that time.
The Law recognizes , however, that under certain circumstances people change enough to alter their legal responsibilities. At parole hearings , for example, it is not uncommon to hear the following sort of argument: "He isn't the same person he was ten years ago. He has realized the error of his ways and has completely reformed. Therefore, he should be granted parole."
But how much and in what ways must someone change in order to be considered a different person?
Buddhist, for example, maintain that because everything in the world is constantly changing, so are we. For them, the self is created a new each instant. Others maintain that only certain types of changes can alter the personal identity.
Who we are seems to be closely tied to our memories. Does that mean that we are our memories? If we have no memory of doing something, can we legitimately claim that we did not do it? Would it be wrong to punish us for something that we had no recollection of doing?
How we answer these questions is determined by our notion of personal identity.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.--St, Ambrose
Peace
Peace,
The Problem of Moral Relativism
All of us make moral judgments. Sometimes we even get into heated arguments about the morality of an action or policy. But the widespread disagreement about what is moral--has led many to believe that there are no objective moral standards. if morality is just a matter of personal opinion (absolute subjectivism) , how ever , then there is no more reason to argue about what is right or wrong than there is to argue about what tastes better --chocolate or vanilla.
Our believing something is right doesn't make it right. Doing the right thing seems to involve more than simply doing what you believe in. The notion that morality is subjective faces serious difficulties. But so does the notion that morality is objective. Resolving these difficulties is of the highest importance, for many of the problems we face in society and as individuals are moral ones. It is paramount to be clear about what a persons moral obligations are.
Peace,
I for one understand how daunting the muddy waters of philosophy can be, it took myself years to break through the text book approach and find clarity in the substance of applying its laws. Philosophy has been given a bad rap for many years because of its confusing nature, and more so I believe for the truths it reveals about a great many issues.
In the end philosophy is about the "LAWS OF THINKING", not how to think, not what to think, but the actual process of thinking logically, truthfully and stoically. This is the most important trait a self reliant person can possess. "I am self reliant, and here is why, and here is my substatiated evidence to support my truth."
I examine my thoughts, I reflect, I re-examine, I choose and then I act, I examine the results, and repeat ad infinitum, this is life. We all do philosophy even if we can not recognize the fact we are doing it. Even if we can not place the text book paradigms upon our thoughts and actions every one who does the good in their lives for their lives exercises philosophically.
333
AzLoneRider
10-10-2009, 07:08 PM
Reading this thread has been an interesting reminder of my college philosophy class. I wrote a paper about the ways people avoid philosophy and how they exist by learning thinking from the TV or from others like political and religious leaders. I will revisit this thread and read again, to post some thoughts.
Peace,
I am glad some one has enjoyed it, I only hope we can get more folks to come to the light.
It is the simplest example I can manage, (I am no expert) it is from my old college text books, save add my thoughts, but you are right that to many folks rely on supposed pontiffs of the radio and TV to spoon feed them their "junk philosophy" unfortunately this promotes their agenda and not the pursuit of truth, or "love of wisdom".
333
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.