Philosophy

[Stomp]

Re: Philosophy

@hiccup

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.

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.