This seems to be quite an interesting topic in this day and age. It is very obscure to the general populase, Like you go up to a friend and ask them to have a philosophical debate with you and they wouldn’t even understand the concept. Yet it is used all the time. And it helped shape the world of today. For if it were not for the men and women(cause I’m sure there are but I don’t know any by name) who questioned the everything and helped us move through the ages. What happened to these men and women? What happened to this grand concept?
Re: Philosophy
uhmmmm... yeah.. greeks were notorious for that.
they used to debate for fun... socrates especially loved debating after his famous admission "the only think i know is that i know nothing"
i'd certainly wana live in that era where discoveries were made... kheir, thats another topic..
the answer to your q : what happened.. well,, may be ppl don't question much cuz a lot of the things r simplified now i.e. a lot of the discoveries are quite common and the things u question can now have multiple solutions/explanations on google..
having said that... wat do u wana have a philosophical debate abt?
Re: Philosophy
you know whats crazy?
at my highschool, the AP english kids do ‘socratic seminars’ - to discuss the books they’ve read. they sit in a circle, and stand in the middle one by one to philosophize their ideas.
if you notice, ever, people who debate actually do bring in a lot of philosophy - to validate their perspectives. i guess it gives their rebuttals some credibility if their words reflect some jungian thoughts…
i dunno. im a clueless kid.
Re: Philosophy
I think intodays age to "philosophise" is akin to chatting much bakwas, every other sardaar jee now is now a psuedo intellectual eating the sar of every other equally pretentious git who is equally (and yet very much-notly) assured that he is the absolute holder of all truths. I am a great advocate of independent though, but not at the expence of my peace of mind, it is mostly complex-ridden fools with inferiority complexes and pre-pubesents that engae in philosophy is todays age. The real thinking, done more privately and thus ( in my opinion, more pure and less for the sake of other and more for being itself - mostly) is the REAL philosophy, it is that which takes over from the fathers of afore imo. Nowwa days everyone has the luxury of thought - that is the real problem. The grand concept was b*stardised and hijacked by wanna-be smarts and coherant idiots. Keep it elitist I say. Get the teenagers to really learn a) how to spell (ironic, i know) b) crush rocks c) other such free labour like chimney sweeping.
The world was so much better when most of the teenagers were stuck u pfireplaces rather than reading Dante. Education for all created the Chav. down with philosophy, back with hard labour.
Re: Philosophy
I agree with you somewhat, the Greeks talked lots of crap. Like some of the mathematical concepts, it’s based on hypothetical stuff. It was invented by Greeks so they had a licence to talk ****. Although sometimes it does have a general application in life, I mean before you build a house you have to ‘philosophize’ about how it’s going to be so then you can make a blueprint of that.
But the Greeks went over the top with it and went a little crazy with it, I mean they would have an argument on a hypothetical issue, the funny thing about this is, if there was a normal person who didn’t understand it, he would assume this person who is arguing about a hypothetical issue is a genius, however if you really understood the concept you would realize he is somewhat full of ****, because a debate on a hypothetical issue is going to be what ever you want it to be. So in every case, its going to seem right, but the debate is based on a logical fallacy. Because (now let me get alittle academic on you all) the argument (hypothetical debate) is independent of the legitimacy of the premises It is a fault in the formation of the argument as opposed to an inaccuracy in its premises. The Argument does not entail anything about the argument’s premises or its conclusion. Both may essentially be factual, but the argument is still illogical because the conclusion does not follow from the premises using the deduction philosophy of the argument. And the sole reason behind that is, because it’s a hypothetical argument and this is what the Greeks did, they pretended to be smartasses in front of people who didn’t have a clue of what the hell they were talking about. So once people realised what was going on, many people shunned philosophers, and dismissed them as Walter Mitty characters, and the whole philosophy kind of died out. But there seems to be a new reassurance of the philosophy, as people realise logical philosophy does have an application in real life.
The proof is; Pakistan, the great philosophiser Allama Muhammad Iqbal philosophised about Pakistan. However the philosophy was not based on an illogical hypothetical issue, it was based on logical issue, which were viable. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, the problem starts when you have people who try to act smart while arguing upon an illogical hypothetical issue which is what ever they believe it to be. The whole concept loses credibility.
Re: Philosophy
^^
hmmm... I have a question for you... After all the technological advancement and media interferrence in our lives, do you think that in another 50 years people will still be philosophical; meaning they would like to engage themselves into philosopical debates/discussions, think philosophically, etc? If you think yes, then why and if you think no, then why not?
Re: Philosophy
Stomp, your hypothesis about 'the person who is arguing about a hypothetical issue' is quite a paradox. Who knows we could be the 'ppl who are arguing' for some one who is reading these posts. Hence, the only way to determine the logic of a hypothesis is by having one and arguing for/against it.
Re: Philosophy
Yes, philosophy has been around since the dawn of man. If our ancestors didn’t philosophize we would not be here today. And I don’t think philosophy will disappear that easily. There will always be philosophers around, who are constantly contemplating about various issues. I think the problem starts when we get bogged down into philosophical discussion about about non viable hypothetical issues which do not benefit anyone. Such as trying to think like god!
Re: Philosophy
True, but the opinion will always be the same, as hypothetical issue will not be able to prove. Now, if someone is going to have a hypothetical debate about flying unicorns then, no matter what I say he is going to believe that. And just because you can’t disprove something doesn’t mean we should believe in it. As what application would a flying pink unicorn have? it would even be pointless to debate it, its a from of a futile philosophical debate. This is the point I am trying to make, your philosophical debate has to be a logical one.
Re: Philosophy
i love hiccup post :love:…she’s a bit extremist…like all teenagers;)…but lot of is true!
philosphy, in greek means love of the wisdom (philo: love, sofia: wisdom)…so originally to philosphe is the intellectual process of creating and gathering and cherishing WISDOM!
no need to be ultra smart to be a philosophe…
and any logical, wise human being is a philosophe ! the diference is that in this day and age fame is mostly based on mass media, and mass media are per se tageted to the most common intelligence and wisdom level in humanity: and most humans are NOT wise…if they were prison would be more empty, wars would not exist and crime would be lower…just like in the most wise (maybe the only widely wise) country : Iceland
so philosophy is not fashionable these days…it does not mean there are less intelligent people thinking smartly and wisely…but we maybe do no want to be associated with the stupid famous people that the stupid ignorant mass people adore;)
Re: Philosophy
Interesting, to note that ‘hiccup’ is a female.
Re: Philosophy
Why would that surprise you Stomp?
A word to the wise would be that extremist language is used (case in question) to make an effective point. Extremist language is the metaphor to my reasoning, not necessarily my beliefs in totality nor in the literal sense.
(Disclaimer over?) Paris lovely, im glad to see us agreeing.
Re: Philosophy
Logic is relative. What seems logical to you make not make any sense to others and vice versa... so the question is where do you draw the line?
Re: Philosophy
You draw the line, where the debate has no application in real life. Like I said debating about a pink flying unicorn has no application in life, so its futile to debate on it. Also for any (logical) argument the conclusion must follow from the premises of the argument.
You’ll have to be very naive or stupid not to spot that in a philosophical discussion.
Re: Philosophy
Well I have not come across a opinionated females who lives in a male dominated society (Islamic world) so it was interesting to note the choice of words you used in your post. Well I could be wrong and you could be a female from the non-Islamic world, in which case it wouldn’t be surprising at all.
Re: Philosophy
You'll have to be very naive or stupid not to spot that in a philosophical discussion.
i get your point... but then again, aren't there 'real' naive people. I don't mean to contradict for say, but the fact is that we all think differently. My question was who decides whether the argument is futile or not. In your example, the pink flying unicorn fits perfectly and well supports your point, but there are many other arguments where deciding the logic of it will be more of a debate rather than its actual pros/cons.
Re: Philosophy
:Dneither hiccup nor me do live in the islamic world:D
we are both females living under the same fifteen golden stars:halo:
Re: Philosophy
i agree with you, actually the really truly open minded philosophe reckon that there are most of the time two sides to any argument, consequently it is possible to argue both one thing and its contrary.
but a real philosphe is one who uses facts to support his arguements. logical arguements are thos that are intelligibly deducible from each others, and supported by proofs! hence using one argument for two opposed thesis is implying to provide different logical argumentation and different supporting facts...
this exercise is usually done in philosphy classes (we had to do it in high school, in philosphy classes:D)...after arguing two sides of an argument we were required to conclude, and make up our mind for one point that "seemed" more valid to us...it was usually more a matter of opinion, feelings or personal moral, than pure logic;)
Re: Philosophy
So what have you in mind parissenoor?
Be philosophic about your loss.You will not feel it.
Re: Philosophy
I think you keep missing my point. You can use a simple truth table (you can’t argue with truth/fact) or a deduction philosophy to see which is a logical debate and which is not.