Kent Hovind's doctoral "thesis" - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

I'm not sure what you mean by shocker exactly. If you mean false, then okay, we're in agreement. However, I don't know why you keep calling philosophy a literary study or "literary science" (whatever that means). There is somewhere they actually do literary study--English depts. They don't do this in philosophy depts. If you are referring to Derrida or postmodernism or deconstruction, then I'll just note that postmodernism has had relatively little influence on Anglo-American philosophy. As for what the good stuff is...well I'm curious what criteria you have for what is "good stuff."

This makes no sense. Philosophers are scholars and academics, so anything written for philosophers is written for scholars and academics. And there is plenty of philosophy being written for students and other amateurs--perhaps you just haven't read it.

Anyway, what's the problem? Math is written for mathematicians, biology for biologists, etc and so on.

Besides, this is just false. Philosophers write articles and books that are read outside the discipline all the time. Daniel Dennett is a notable example of this, as is Paul and Patricia Churchland, John Searle, David Chalmers and many others working in cognitive science. Or how about Robert Nozick and John Rawls writings about politics. Or Grice in linguistics. Or Dworkin, or Hart, or Raz in law.

Finally, the core subjects of philosophy--metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are still important in themselves. In all of these subjects, lots of new and interesting work has been done in last 50 years. Unless you can tell me either how this work is not new or not important, your claim seems to be simple prejudice.

It's true that the role of philosophy has changed--it is no longer the queen of the sciences. But that doesn't mean it is dead or near dead.

I don't have a problem with disagreement either. I do have a problem with ignorant opinions.

I think you could have saved us both some time and just written "false, nonsensical, prejudiced and ignorant".

Untill next time.

Quote

01-20-2010 , 08:51 PM

#127

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I think you could have saved us both some time and just written "false, nonsensical, prejudiced and ignorant".

Untill next time.

Nah. If I disagree with someone's sincere claims, and say so, I feel like I have a duty to explain why. I don't have any reason to think you weren't being sincere.

But, if you don't wish to continue this conversation further, then we can stop here. I hope you understand that if I appear passionate here, it is regarding the subject matter and is not directed at you personally and so am sorry if I was too harsh.

Quote

01-20-2010 , 09:14 PM

#128

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I would agree if I thought philosophy was inaccessible or difficult, but I don't. I'm saying what I say because I think philosophy has reached it's limits. The idealists killed philosophy by uniting empiricism and rationalism.

The natural next step to look for answers are in physics and neuroscience. What rules do the world seemingly conform to and how do we affect them and perceive them.

I find current philosophy inaccessible or difficult. I find rehashing dead philosophers' works kind of boring, technical and unexciting (which is how I took your characterisation of it). Don't you think that you are just unaware of whatever it is philosophers regard as contentious these days? It seems likely to me that they're arguing about just as profound issues as they used to - it's just that what you and I understand as profound, they now consider trivial and only worth 'tidying up loose ends'. It seems to me that what they probably consider the cutting edge is beyond what you and I can even understand, let alone find interesting or important.

They've moved on from philosophy of the mind because science has begun to catch up. Who knows where they're heading next. Do you think that once science is done 'solving' physics and neuroscience it will have nothing else to do? What barrier is there that philosophy has run into such that the hard questions are done?

Of course - perhaps my judging you is just reflecting back my own inadequacy. There's a lot of that going around apparently.

Quote:

Again; I understand that people disagree. But my opinion is based on my knowledge and love of philosophy, not some distaste for it.

I don't know that I do disagree actually. I'm just not sure if I'm even entitled to agree with you or not.

Quote

01-20-2010 , 09:15 PM

#129

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I can take harsh, I don't expect to write "philosophy is dead" and not face a little heat. Plus, you probably know modern philosophy better than I do. I still hold that there is a grain of truth in what I wrote however.

But sure, philosophy being dead is way too strong, however as my father said once when we debated method: A strong statement may have greater chance of facing disagreement, but disagreemet is a good teacher.

Last edited by tame_deuces; 01-20-2010 at 09:22 PM.

Quote

01-21-2010 , 01:07 AM

#130

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

It seems likely to me that they're arguing about just as profound issues as they used to - it's just that what you and I understand as profound, they now consider trivial and only worth 'tidying up loose ends'. .

Lets not get carried away here, we are talking about the only field of thought that hasn't solved a problem in the last 2000 years

Quote

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last