Why is it important to start with simple axioms when building a system?

[LightbulbSun]

This is a video I posted on my channel just a couple of days ago. I wanted to hear everyones feedback on the content of the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6zyvlzbFoY"

Thanks.

 

[Gear300]

Lets say that you were looking straight towards a car coming at you near light speed. You have no idea of relativistic phenomenon so you assume that its coming towards just as it would at 60mph...but instead with light speed. Before the car gets to you, the driver turns on the headlights. Analyze how you will view this situation.

When you are assuming that the conditions are nonrelativistic...you are philosophizing. When you analyze how the situation would appear to you...you are philosophizing. Science and philosophy are not completely separate...science is somewhat of an empirical circumstance of philosophy.

 

[BryanP]

Yes. I believe science have elements that are part of a subset of philosophy. For example, one ponders about the reality around them, or on some arbitrary notion. Making assumptions off these ponderings is analogous to philosophizing. Science takes it to another step by actually making use of the data gathered, and analyzing the data. Inferences are made about the data gathered at times, and if this agrees to let's say, physical nature, then it is considered true until proven otherwise.

 

[futurebird]

I agree with some of you views on philosophy. A great deal of it is useless perverse or worse. But, science is limited-- (as are all human endeavors, but who cares?) ... and I think you're being too literal about the bit about Hume. I can see the point that they are making-- but, it seems sort of empty to me. That is, of COURSE we can "really know" if cause and effect works as we tend to assume it works, but honestly no one really cares.

Now, I don't know what philosophy can do that religion can't, and the subject is so Eurocentric and sexist is and what isn't called "philosophy" just seems to depend on who is or who isn't "in the club" --There's little objectivity. It's so sad.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I'm having a problem seeing his problem (the guy in the video). Belief can be something independent of knowledge, as one might have false beliefs, and therefore not have knowledge. But belief in something that is true constitutes knowledge. I think that's the tricky part - determining what is true. The closest we can get to truth is what's been empirically verified to date, and I think the scientific method is fine with that. Hypotheses are not "proved", just supported.

I'm not sure I understand his beef with David Hume either. Scientists have the difficult job of discerning underlying causal mechanisms from associations. There are times when A appears to cause B (because B always reliably follows A) but in fact, A does not cause B. Maybe C actually causes both A and B, but the temporal sequence of events generates the inference of what causes what. For instance, sniffling might always precede a cold, but sniffling itself does not cause colds. A virus causes both, but in a progressive order.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure I understand his beef with David Hume either. Scientists have the difficult job of discerning underlying causal mechanisms from associations. There are times when A appears to cause B (because B always reliably follows A) but in fact, A does not cause B. Maybe C actually causes both A and B, but the temporal sequence of events generates the inference of what causes what. For instance, sniffling might always precede a cold, but sniffling itself does not cause colds. A virus causes both, but in a progressive order.

This sort of thing seems to occur a lot in 'scientific studies', especially the sort you hear about in the news. I heard one recently stating that men over the age of fifty who have sex once a week or more are less likely to suffer from sexual or erectile dysfunction. Seemingly completely bypassing the idea that maybe these men are still having sex that often because they don't suffer from any sort of sexual dysfunction.

 

[Gear300]

limited-- (as are all human endeavors, but who cares?)

That is true...this is why we are not anywhere close to gods nor can we solve the several paradoxes we find to be paradoxes; hell, we even associate gods with our consciousness (quite frankly because we do not see beyond our consciousness)...then again...gods are nonetheless as meaningless as us...so yes, science is philosophical (most people do not see it because of its empiricism and its tendency to lean more towards what can be considered truth) and so are mathematics, religion, etc...we created it all.

 

[Dale]

But belief in something that is true constitutes knowledge.

Actually, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology" , a justified belief in something that is true constitutes knowledge. The scientific method is essentially a method to falsify or justify beliefs. It does not address "truth" and therefore is not a method for obtaining knowledge in the epistemological sense.

If you want "truth" talk to a priest or philosopher, not a scientist.

 

[neu]

http://skepdic.com/russell.html

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.

 

[futurebird]

Bertrand Russell might be the only philosopher I like. But he was a mathematician too. I think the quote neu posed is just wonderful-- and it cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Seen in this way, the question remains, why do we need philosophy and religion. Why can't we just have math and science then throw all of our deep mysteries to religion? Philosophers often talk about things that I simply leave to God until such a time (if such a time ever comes) when women make those mysteries into science.

Philosophers spend time pondering questions like "Did I turn on the lamp, or did my hand, that flipped the switch, turn on the lamp?" Me? I leave this God. It simplifies life immensely. Philosophers ask "Can we really know if other people are conscious?" I leave this to God with a standing invitation for science to step in an take over anytime.

I ask "Why do we need philosophers?" and God says to treat them as I would be treated myself... so I try to lead them out of the weeds.

 

[arildno]

It seems to be a premise of many of the posters that science IS "limited" in some essensialist, absolute way that won't change.

That is an empty, dismissable assertion.

The correct, but banal, view, is that there are lots of stuff science still hasn't elucidated properly.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Actually, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology" , a justified belief in something that is true constitutes knowledge.

I was addressing the definitions he gave in the video.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I'm having a problem seeing his problem (the guy in the video).

The guy in the video is me.

Belief can be something independent of knowledge, as one might have false beliefs, and therefore not have knowledge. But belief in something that is true constitutes knowledge. I think that's the tricky part - determining what is true. The closest we can get to truth is what's been empirically verified to date, and I think the scientific method is fine with that. Hypotheses are not "proved", just supported.

Their definitions for knowledge and belief though were contradictory.

Knowledge: True Belief.
Belief: Conviction or trust that a claim is true; an individual's subjective mental state; distinct from knowledge.

Maybe what they're saying is that it's an assumption that has been substantiated, but why would knowledge be interchangeable with belief? Especially when they say that belief is distinct from knowledge. They have three different definitions for belief. The first two would never apply to knowledge. How would actual knowledge be just a subjective mental state? Subjective is personal, not universal.

I'm not sure I understand his beef with David Hume either. Scientists have the difficult job of discerning underlying causal mechanisms from associations. There are times when A appears to cause B (because B always reliably follows A) but in fact, A does not cause B. Maybe C actually causes both A and B, but the temporal sequence of events generates the inference of what causes what. For instance, sniffling might always precede a cold, but sniffling itself does not cause colds. A virus causes both, but in a progressive order.

This is in their wording, but they said that if Hume was correct then "there is no empirical evidence for the existence of cause and effect." If such is the case then Hume's proposition is extremely flawed. Even if A was really caused by C, we could still determine this with cause and effect so I'm not sure what Hume or the book is trying to get at.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It seems to be a premise of many of the posters that science IS "limited" in some essensialist, absolute way that won't change.

That is an empty, dismissable assertion.

The correct, but banal, view, is that there are lots of stuff science still hasn't elucidated properly.

As the saying goes "science doesn't know everything, but religion/philosophy doesn't know anything."

 

[futurebird]

Subjective is personal, not universal.

Truth is contextual, though, especially in matters of "right and "wrong" -- identifying "evil" and "good."

And ultimately everything is subjective, but there is no real point in dwelling on this.

 

[futurebird]

This is in their wording, but they said that if Hume was correct then "there is no empirical evidence for the existence of cause and effect." If such is the case then Hume's proposition is extremely flawed. Even if A was really caused by C, we could still determine this with cause and effect so I'm not sure what Hume or the book is trying to get at.

I think all they are saying is that, at some point, you have to make a small assumption. It's so small you're not even noticing it. And it has little impact on the validity of scientific facts, but it's still there. We all assume that the things we observe are not totally disconnected from each other, we assume that there can be chains of cause and effect. There is no way to prove that this is true. I think that's all they are talking about.

It's pretty silly if you ask me. But not as senseless as you make it out to be.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Truth is contextual, though, especially in matters of "right and "wrong" -- identifying "evil" and "good."

And ultimately everything is subjective, but there is no real point in dwelling on this.

There really is no truth or facts when it comes to morality. It all comes down to compassion and empathy.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "ultimately everything is subjective" because the way it's worded now, I completely disagree.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I think all they are saying is that, at some point, you have to make a small assumption. It's so small you're not even noticing it. And it has little impact on the validity of scientific facts, but it's still there. We all assume that the things we observe are not totally disconnected from each other, we assume that there can be chains of cause and effect. There is no way to prove that this is true. I think that's all they are talking about.

It's pretty silly if you ask me. But not as senseless as you make it out to be.

Silly is my point. It reminds me of that thought that you can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow. This is my issue with philosophy. It's like they want to throw out the naive card just to purposely irritate you.

 

[futurebird]

There really is no truth or facts when it comes to morality. It all comes down to compassion and empathy.

In general this is true, but ina given context an action can be flat-out right or wrong. And some things are so wrong no context is required (since you get the same answer in every one.)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "ultimately everything is subjective" because the way it's worded now, I completely disagree.

Case in point.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Case in point.

So you're saying if I disagree with what you say, then this ultimately makes truth subjective? If I have accurately depicted what you were conveying, then if someone wants to deny that the Earth is round and claim it's flat, then this ultimately makes the notion that the Earth is round merely subjective?

 

[futurebird]

Silly is my point. It reminds me of that thought that you can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow. This is my issue with philosophy. It's like they want to throw out the naive card just to purposely irritate you.

Modern philosophy is this way, they also abuse mathematics to make their work seem more "scientific" than it really is. I do like reading Hume, though. If you look at his work in the context of his time it is very interesting... Descartes is fun to read too, even if he was wrong about a lot of things.

Philosophers who deal with morality are the most substantial modern philosophers. There are real issues to address there, but they get little credit from their peers. Also philosophers are often too exclusive about what constitutes "philosophy." I get the sense much of this is an effort to reduce competition in the field.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Bertrand Russell might be the only philosopher I like. But he was a mathematician too. I think the quote neu posed is just wonderful-- and it cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Seen in this way, the question remains, why do we need philosophy and religion. Why can't we just have math and science then throw all of our deep mysteries to religion? Philosophers often talk about things that I simply leave to God until such a time (if such a time ever comes) when women make those mysteries into science.

Philosophers spend time pondering questions like "Did I turn on the lamp, or did my hand, that flipped the switch, turn on the lamp?" Me? I leave this God. It simplifies life immensely. Philosophers ask "Can we really know if other people are conscious?" I leave this to God with a standing invitation for science to step in an take over anytime.

I ask "Why do we need philosophers?" and God says to treat them as I would be treated myself... so I try to lead them out of the weeds.

It was a philosopher that originally came up with the idea of the atom. Inless I am mistaken I believe it was also a philosopher that proposed the idea that everything, including matter, is primarily made up of emptiness, or space. As pointed out in the Skepdic article philosophers pave the way to new ways of thinking on problems which have many times eventually led to actual scientific break throughs. Where philosophy answers questions with questions, opeing us to new ways of thinking, religion answers with definites (case closed) or admits to no answer but god (as you point out) ceasing inquiry and thoughtful examination.

 

[futurebird]

So you're saying if I disagree with what you say, then this ultimately makes truth subjective? If I have accurately depicted what you were conveying, then if someone wants to deny that the Earth is round and claim it's flat, then this ultimately makes the notion that the Earth is round merely subjective?

Well the meaning of "the earth" and "is flat" is subjective here. I think that's the source of the disagreement in most cases.

 

[futurebird]

It was a philosopher that originally came up with the idea of the atom.

I think that was the same guy who thought the whales are closely related to fish, right? And the idea was that there was a smallest possible particle. And we still don't know if that was true or not. Anyone can speculate about such things and everyone should. But there's no reason to make a field and call it "philosophy" just so you can aggrandize the random musing of some while ignoring others.

 

[JasonRox]

This sort of thing seems to occur a lot in 'scientific studies', especially the sort you hear about in the news. I heard one recently stating that men over the age of fifty who have sex once a week or more are less likely to suffer from sexual or erectile dysfunction. Seemingly completely bypassing the idea that maybe these men are still having sex that often because they don't suffer from any sort of sexual dysfunction.

That could be.

I don't see how anyone can have sex less than once a week. That's horrible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think that was the same guy who thought the whales are closely related to fish, right? And the idea was that there was a smallest possible particle. And we still don't know if that was true or not. Anyone can speculate about such things and everyone should. But there's no reason to make a field and call it "philosophy" just so you can aggrandize the random musing of some while ignoring others.

No need to create it. It has existed longer than science and seems to have already proven its usefullness. The only point of contention really seems to be whether or not it has out lived that usefulness.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The guy in the video likely didn't even read the book he's "reviewing" and gives opinions that in are in no way supported by the book and its author, Soccio, and in no way can be inferred from it, either.

I was also assigned "Archetypes of Wisdom" for a philosophy class I took, and it is one of the best books I've ever read, not just in philosophy.

The book is a textbook that has in the margins quotes and musings from famous philosophers, as well as cartoons and so on (like the wonderful Calvin and Hobbes series) that are in some way connected to the material discussed in the relevant chapter.

Everything that guy quotes are either from the margins or, like in the case of the quote from Buddha, are on the opening chapter pages. All of his quotes are from the first part of the book, which isn't even about Western philosophy in the first place, but about Eastern philosophy. In fact, the guy must have only flipped through chapter one and the opening of chapter two.

Anyway, he's wrong about Buddha as well. If one bothered to read the book, or to stay awake during the course, he'd note that Buddha was not in any way a "misanthrope." A misanthrope has an overall negative view of humanity, that is in a way, doomed, and no faith in individual choices.

However, as the book notes, the Buddha's beliefs were the exact opposte (page 49-50):

"Among the insights Buddha gained during his arduous search for enlightenment, three 'realities' command our attention: impermanence, suffering, and egolessness. In simplistic, contemporary terms, we can sum up this part of Buddha's teaching like this: 'Although nothing lasts, suffering is everywhere, and the 'me' that suffers isn't even real.'

"At the core of the Buddha's doctrine is the concept of the primal unsatisfactoriness (dukka) generated by the perilousness of the human condition and by the inescapability of physical suffering and sickness, psychological conflict, anxiety, and anguish. As if this is not enough, Buddha reminds us that beneath our dissatisfaction lies a profounder insight: the insubstantiality of existence.

"Awareness of insubstantiality is related to the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence (ever-change) and egolessness... Out of ignorance, we project a sense of 'permanence' onto impermanent conditions. Because all is in flux, we are inevitably disappointed by change, destruction, and loss.

"Failing to see the true nature of the complex web of conditions and reactions that we think of as 'an individual,' our illusory 'self' remains subject to suffering and perpetual dissatisfaction. We compound suffering whenever we insist on projecting (excepting and anticipating) the possibility of a continuous life of pleasure, joy, and stability for our individual selves. While in a state of projection, we find it difficult to accept that we are subject to sickness, grief, and suffering. We resist the deeper insight by engaging in repression, aggression, greed, lust (consuption), denial, and anger. So it is that a fundamental 'human condition' or 'predicament' is our heritage. As one translation of Buddha's First Noble Truth poetically puts it, 'When we are born, suffering comes with us.'

"Is this vision of the fundamental human condition pessimistic? Perhaps it would be, if Buddha had nothing more to teach. But Buddha promised that through a discipline of meditation, we can learn to control unruly desires and realizes what happiness is possible given the facts -- not our projections -- of the human condition.

"Thus, we see that central to Buddha's teaching is a notion of free will, a belief that we can control our thoughts, attitudes, and behavior and that thoughts, attitudes, and behavior have consequences. These consequences, their causes, and their control are called karma."

(emphasis mine.)

He goes on to state that karma really isn't the same thing as fate. In the first instance, not everything happens because of Karma, as different laws govern "natural change, physical phenomena, certain psychological processes" and so on. And second, because if karma alone acted for the human condition, a person with good karma would always be good and a person with bad karma would always be bad.

Rather, karma comes because of an individual's actions, which Buddha believed that a change in either our actions, thoughts, or feelings always has an affect on the other.

I post all this to give some context, and because there is nothing misanthropic about this. It's merely an opinion of the existence of humanity, and one that is not overall negative, as Buddha quite clearly seemed to believe we could overcome these problems.

As for the definition of "true belief" and "belief," the author is talking about that in the context of epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and whether or not it is even possible.

What he's saying is not anti-science, as science doesn't deal in absolute truth in the first place. There is no such thing as absolutism in real science, and you cannot even prove that the ground exists or existed definitely five minutes ago. For instance, one could claim that the world sprang up five minutes ago, with all of human consciousness in tact. This is obviously ridiculous but it is not logically refutable. This is the argument some creationists give against evolution, that God created the world 6,000 years ago only to "test our faith."

What science is about that is having a theory that is capable of being proven wrong, yet all empirical evidence points to it being true. This could be considered a scientific "fact" or a "true belief," swuch as evolution. Scientists have an inherent self-interest in being honest because there usually isn't a "second chance" after someone is exposed as being a complete fraud in the field.

It's not appropriate to claim that philosophy is "anti-science" based on excerpts you read from a discussion on Eastern philosophy in chapter one of a textbook, that isn't even the mainpoint of the discussion. I guess it could be seen as confusing to put Eastern philosophy in an introduction to philosophy that is primarily an introduction to Western philsoophy, but really even the interpretations of Eastern concepts is not accurate. The book, in the discussion of Western philosophy, covers many Western philosophers who were not only important to philosophy but to the advancement of science and scientific philosophy as well, such as Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume (as well as aristotle etc., some might say it helps to understand science if you understand how past scientists viewed the world, and how their views, like Aristotelian physics, came to be disproven).

 

[OrbitalPower]

It was a philosopher that originally came up with the idea of the atom. Inless I am mistaken I believe it was also a philosopher that proposed the idea that everything, including matter, is primarily made up of emptiness, or space. As pointed out in the Skepdic article philosophers pave the way to new ways of thinking on problems which have many times eventually led to actual scientific break throughs. Where philosophy answers questions with questions, opeing us to new ways of thinking, religion answers with definites (case closed) or admits to no answer but god (as you point out) ceasing inquiry and thoughtful examination.

What happened to furturebird's original post on Russell? Anyway, Russell was one of my favorite philosophers as well.

His book "History of Western Philosophy" is very much like Soccio's "Archetypes of Wisdom," and could be served as a companion to it, or vice versa. This is because Russell also notes the "history" in which these philosphers grew up in.

He also wrote a book unlike Soccio's called An Outline of Philosophy. This book takes a very objective view of philosophy from the perpective of man from the outside, man from the inside, the nature of sciences, etc. For example, he skewers behaviorist interpretations of man, examines language, memory, thoughts, actions from the "outside," etc.

I think if people want to get a good understanding of Western philosophy and what it teaches they should read all three books, and in doing so they'll get a taste of Eastern philsoophy as well.

Russell also said this:

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men. The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind. If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

...Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

(quoted in Soccio's book, from Russell's book the problems of philosophy.)

It's well known that philosophy and science were once about the same thing as well, it was simply called "natural philosophy." Newton's famous book has that in the title. However, as science became more objective, falsifiable, and based on evidence the two disciplines separated although logic, the philosophy of science, and so on is still a part of philosophy.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The guy in the video likely didn't even read the book he's "reviewing" and gives opinions that in are in no way supported by the book and its author, Soccio, and in no way can be inferred from it, either.

I didn't read all of the book, but I've read 90% of it. It is a rather thick textbook.

Anyway, he's wrong about Buddha as well. If one bothered to read the book, or to stay awake during the course, he'd note that Buddha was not in any way a "misanthrope."

Well, if you were to read Buddha's Four Noble Truths, you can get a sense that he hates human life and the subjective experience in general.

1. The universality of suffering
It has also been stated as "life is suffering." Doesn't this seem a bit pessimistic?

2. The cause of suffering is rooted in desire.
So ambition is the problem?

3. By ending desire, suffering comes to an end.
So if you stopped striving for something then all of your problems would fade? Doesn't this seem like a proposition that we should stop trying to live our life?

I won't even get into the Eightfold Path, but this, combined with the quote leads me to being skeptical of people who say that he loved humanity.

As for the definition of "true belief" and "belief," the author is talking about that in the context of epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and whether or not it is even possible.

Do you not notice the contradictions in definition though? I've posted this in the sidebar on the video and in this thread.

What he's saying is not anti-science, as science doesn't deal in absolute truth in the first place. There is no such thing as absolutism in real science, and you cannot even prove that the ground exists or existed definitely five minutes ago. For instance, one could claim that the world sprang up five minutes ago, with all of human consciousness in tact. This is obviously ridiculous but it is not logically refutable. This is the argument some creationists give against evolution, that God created the world 6,000 years ago only to "test our faith."

So what? This is just nitpicking. How is this in any way useful? Besides, one could easily refute this by videotaping yourself five minutes ago, and then five minutes later replaying the tape.

What science is about that is having a theory that is capable of being proven wrong, yet all empirical evidence points to it being true. This could be considered a scientific "fact" or a "true belief," such as evolution.

Again, how is a fact or knowledge to be considered a belief? You can't just make up synonyms for words.

It's not appropriate to claim that philosophy is "anti-science" based on excerpts you read from a discussion on Eastern philosophy in chapter one of a textbook, that isn't even the mainpoint of the discussion.

Philosophy is anti-science for the most part, with a few exceptions. I'll have to dig it out later, but there is an excerpt in the book that talks about physics and colors. Of course, they always start out with "if we are to believe physicists." What's there to believe? The evidence for a claim is all that matters. It's either true or it's not. There is no believing. Who are they wanting to believe?

 

[futurebird]

Philosophy is anti-science for the most part, with a few exceptions.

I would say "philosophy wishes it were a science" --it's a pseudoscience. All of the mysticism and subjectivity of religion with none of the honesty about that mysticism and subjectivity.

And I don't think you're being fair to Buddha. You're taking those ideas very literally. I think they work, but not if you going to twist around the meaning like that in such a narrow way.

 

[LightbulbSun]

And I don't think you're being fair to Buddha. You're taking those ideas very literally. I think they work, but not if you going to twist around the meaning like that in such a narrow way.

He should of been more detailed then. If he could provide some context on "suffering" and "desire" then maybe, depending on what he said, I would have a different view of him.

 

[futurebird]

He should of been more detailed then. If he could provide some context on "suffering" and "desire" then maybe, depending on what he said, I would have a different view of him.

I think you've got to look at it more like poetry and less like a proof.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I think you've got to look at it more like poetry and less like a proof.

Well, this poetry is a cog to the religion of Buddhism. I know many people get offended when people tag Buddhism as a religion, but it is. Sure, it doesn't have a personal god or gods, but it is dogmatic nonetheless.

 

[futurebird]

Well, this poetry is a cog to the religion of Buddhism. I know many people get offended when people tag Buddhism as a religion, but it is. Sure, it doesn't have a personal god or gods, but it is dogmatic nonetheless.

All philosophy is pretty much a religion.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Videotaping yourself five minutes ago and playing it back 5 minutes later is not a "proof" that history exists.

The philosopher could claim that everything came into existence as it was just two seconds ago, including the tape. Again, this is the "logical argument" religious fanatics give against evolution, that the bones were there to "look like" they are older than they are.

Whether this is rational or not is different from whether or not it is an absolute proof of something.

Any scientist knows that there is a lapse of time as well between the observation and his notes, that is why he tries to transcribe his findings as quickly as possible. But it's never truly instantaneous, thus the argument against existence stands.

A scientist, of all people, knows it's important to understand the propensity not just of people to fool you, but of your ability to fool yourself.

Buddha's insights are psychological. Just recently, someone posted a study by psychologists that is pretty objective (asking people what they believe directly) that seem to confirm some of his beliefs.

Trying to figure out why people suffer and how they can overcome it is not "misanthropic" in my opinion.

I'll have to dig it out later, but there is an excerpt in the book that talks about physics and colors.

Are you talking about Locke's primary and secondary qualities? You know that while theswe were disproven, they did contribute to the advancement of science by being shown to be wrong?

I don't still don't see your case for philosophy being "anti-science" yet. Philosophy is simply discussing things that science cannot disprove things in, such as ethics, morality, the existence of god (yes this is part philosophy too, i.e. metaphysics), and so on.