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

[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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

Buddhism certainly is a religion. Its focus primarily on philosophy is fairly recent.

 

[OrbitalPower]

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.

Pseudoscience is more like mysticism, astrology, and so on. It is claims being made without proper evidence.

Economics is closer to junk science than philosophy is.

Philsosophy tries to deal with clarity of thought and language, deep thinking about certain issues (such as political philosophy), and so on.

I see no reason why people shouldn't be concerned with things like politics or ethics, or other things such as cosmetic beauty (i.e. art).

Logic is also part of philosophy and logic is not "pseudoscience."

 

[LightbulbSun]

Pseudoscience is more like mysticism, astrology, and so on. It is claims being made without proper evidence.

How does Philosophy not fall under this definition? It uses logic and reasoning, but it does not test, it does not collect data, it does not present physical evidence. You can manipulate any claim without the evidence.

Economics is closer to junk science than philosophy is.

Could you substantiate this claim?

Philsosophy tries to deal with clarity of thought and language, deep thinking about certain issues (such as political philosophy), and so on.

If nitpicking and creating word salads is clarity of thought and deep thinking then I guess whatever floats your boat.

I see no reason why people shouldn't be concerned with things like politics or ethics, or other things such as cosmetic beauty (i.e. art).

Logic is also part of philosophy and logic is not "pseudoscience."

People should be concerned about politics and ethics, but for a philosophy book to make little quips about science is completely misguided. Would civilization and the quality of life have progressed if we relied solely on philosophy? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Math Is Hard]

The guy in the video is me.

Nice face!

Their definitions for knowledge and belief though were contradictory.

Maybe what they're saying is that it's an assumption that has been substantiated, but why would knowledge be interchangeable with belief?

I wasn't able to extract that from the definitions. Just the opposite, in fact.

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.

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

Are these three separate definitions of belief? I thought they were just one but with different aspects separated by semicolons. All three seem to go together because the last two aren't satisfactory by themselves. Reading the last two together also can't define belief without tying back to the first. "An individual's subjective mental state; distinct from knowledge." could as easily be anxiety, or happiness, or memories of a weekend in Tahoe, or what have you.

OK, looking at two the definitions given for knowledge and belief:

Knowledge: True Belief.

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

I don't find these contradictory. Maybe I'm just taking too shallow an interpretation of this, but I think all that is being said is that knowledge and beliefs are not necesarily the same thing. It seems that they are describing knowledge as a subset of beliefs. All your items of knowledge are beliefs, but not all your beliefs are knowledge. Something like: all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

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.

From the little bit I know about Hume, his idea was "how do you know if you're observing a causal relationship between two events or just perceiving a mere coincidence between two events that appear causally related?". We observe an event following another event, but we don't observe causal mechanism between the two - we infer it. An example he used was of a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. The first ball makes contact; the second moves away. The transfer of kinetic energy is not something observable, but we still assume that the first ball caused the second to move. Our perception is biased by the consistency of one event following another on many,many occasions. I can't defend Hume, because I am admittedly a shallow reader of his work, but I believe this is the general idea. He does have his critics, by the way.

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.

Can we really determine it? Or just infer it, because over and over again, that appears to be what's happening?

I think it's great that you pick this stuff apart. I'm grateful because it's been helpful to me and encouraged me to go and do more reading. But why didn't you aim these questions at your philosophy professor? If I had a bunch of questions and couldn't get decent explanations from the prof, I think I'd want my money back.

 

[Math Is Hard]

If nitpicking and creating word salads is clarity of thought and deep thinking then I guess whatever floats your boat.

Philosophers adore nitpicking, but abhor word salads. Otherwise, they would not bother distilling premises and conclusions into syllogisms for examination.

Philosophy is not the enemy of science. If anything, it is the caring older brother, saying, "Be careful, always remember your logic, and be mindful of the traps and biases that could lead you in the wrong direction."

 

[WarPhalange]

Weren't scientists called "natural philosophers" for a long time?

 

[Moridin]

Weren't scientists called "natural philosophers" for a long time?

This is somewhat correct. For instance, Newton is today considered a scientist, but he was viewed as a philosopher by his contemporaries. For Descartes, it is the other way around.

Anyways, all critiques against the discipline of philosophy is by definition itself philosophy and therefore, does little more than to simply declare itself false.

 

[futurebird]

Pseudoscience is more like mysticism, astrology, and so on. It is claims being made without proper evidence.

How is philosophy different.

Economics is closer to junk science than philosophy is.

Economists do the best they can in a chaotic world. At some level they do want, at least to make sense of the economy. Even if it is very hard and perhaps too complex to make good science. I don't think the good economists have any illusions about the perfection of their work-- but there are a few blow-hards that make the whole field look bad.

Philsosophy tries to deal with clarity of thought and language, deep thinking about certain issues (such as political philosophy), and so on.

Just like religion and astrology.

I see no reason why people shouldn't be concerned with things like politics or ethics, or other things such as cosmetic beauty (i.e. art).

I agree. Anyone can be a philosopher and everyone should be a philosopher. But say that to someone who studies philosophy and they'll fly into a rage.

Logic is also part of philosophy and logic is not "pseudoscience."

Logic is part of math.

 

[futurebird]

Anyways, all critiques against the discipline of philosophy is by definition itself philosophy and therefore, does little more than to simply declare itself false.

Not if the main point you want to make is that academic philosophy is largely useless, needlessly exclusive, hopelessly Eurocentric, frequently sexist and servers to aggrandize the egos of a few people, who'd probably do more good with their intelligence studying mathematics or perhaps learning to carve pretty stone work for public buildings... or something... or anything else.

 

[futurebird]

Philosophy is not the enemy of science. If anything, it is the caring older brother, saying, "Be careful, always remember your logic, and be mindful of the traps and biases that could lead you in the wrong direction."

Really? In my experience it's just seemed like a tool to label some people "great thinkers" while ignoring others... and little else.

 

[WarPhalange]

Logic is part of math.

No, other way around. Math is a subset of Logic from Philosophy.

 

[D H]

Philosophy is not the enemy of science. If anything, it is the caring older brother, saying, "Be careful, always remember your logic, and be mindful of the traps and biases that could lead you in the wrong direction."

If you must resort to familial analogies, I would say that philosophy is the senile older uncle of mathematics rather than the caring older brother. Science has some black sheep in its family tree as well. There's dear old Uncle Alchemy, sweet Aunt Astrology, and of course great grandfather Aristotelean physics. Science has disowned itself from its doddering ancestors. Isn't it about time mathematics did the same?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Nice face!

Thanks hahaha!

I wasn't able to extract that from the definitions. Just the opposite, in fact.

It's probably just the way I view a dictionary, but typically you wouldn't see antonyms in a definition. That's why I viewed it as contradictory.

Are these three separate definitions of belief? I thought they were just one but with different aspects separated by semicolons.

You're right. I guess they all go together.

I don't find these contradictory. Maybe I'm just taking too shallow an interpretation of this, but I think all that is being said is that knowledge and beliefs are not necesarily the same thing. It seems that they are describing knowledge as a subset of beliefs. All your items of knowledge are beliefs, but not all your beliefs are knowledge. Something like: all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

See above, but I see what you're saying. I guess I would use the word assumption or proposition instead of belief. I really didn't like their word choosing.

From the little bit I know about Hume, his idea was "how do you know if you're observing a causal relationship between two events or just perceiving a mere coincidence between two events that appear causally related?". We observe an event following another event, but we don't observe causal mechanism between the two - we infer it. An example he used was of a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. The first ball makes contact; the second moves away. The transfer of kinetic energy is not something observable, but we still assume that the first ball caused the second to move. Our perception is biased by the consistency of one event following another on many,many occasions. I can't defend Hume, because I am admittedly a shallow reader of his work, but I believe this is the general idea. He does have his critics, by the way.

Now that makes more sense to me than what the book was implying. Yes, inductive inference is apart of science. But this reminds me of the old "you can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow!" It's useless to point this out in the grand scheme of things, and again, goes back to my gripe on philosophy: it relies too much on nitpicking.

Can we really determine it? Or just infer it, because over and over again, that appears to be what's happening?

We can infer it.

I think it's great that you pick this stuff apart. I'm grateful because it's been helpful to me and encouraged me to go and do more reading. But why didn't you aim these questions at your philosophy professor? If I had a bunch of questions and couldn't get decent explanations from the prof, I think I'd want my money back.

Because my philosophy professor was an arrogant *******. He likely would of made anti-science statements that would of just frustrated me.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Because my philosophy professor was an arrogant *******. He likely would of made anti-science statements that would of just frustrated me.

He might have. Or maybe not. Could you have countered those statements with specific questions, gently, without ticking him off? It's a delicate situation, and hard to do when the professor holds your grades in his hands.

I feel your pain. I had a phil professor who was not particularly arrogant, but just couldn't make sense. We had a discussion board online, and he kept asking us to "do some philosophy" on it. So we tried to indulge him. Someone would make an argument and the rest of us would try to poke holes in it, but he'd just say, "no, no, you're not doing it right. Let's do some philosophy!" And none of ever figured out what the hell he was talking about.

I also had this somewhat odd teacher, and it became clear that if you did not see the world through her feminist/vegetarian glasses, that you probably wouldn't succeed in the course. I dropped that class after two meetings. I probably didn't give her a fair shot, but I wasn't willing to take the risk with my GPA.

But I had another teacher who presented things very clearly and really knew his stuff. He answered all our questions. If you tried to challenge an argument he presented, he'd quickly have you down in a mental half-nelson just by gently asking you a few targeted questions. I took a class in logic and critical thinking from him, and it helped me learn to look at arguments more analytically, and to identify fallacies. He loved science, too, especially neuroscience, and what it might be able to tell us about free will. I also studied philosophy of religion with him, and wish I could take more of his courses.

If I'd only had the first teacher or second, I probably would have had a bitter taste in my mouth for philosophy. I was really lucky to take classes from the last teacher. I hope one day you'll run across one like that, someone you can challenge and get answers from.

 

[futurebird]

No, other way around. Math is a subset of Logic from Philosophy.

Huh? It is true that all math "logical" and, true, we use formal logic a lot-- but math is not just a subset of logic. That is, we're not just studying logic. We're studying patterns. And inventing them. Logic is just one tool, used often.

And what philosophers call logic seems to be something else.

 

[WarPhalange]

When studying logic in a philosophy setting you don't declare what is it your terms, such as "p" or "q", are. In math they have limits such as being a number or whatnot. You can't use math to say whether an argument is valid or not, you have to use logic.

Have you ever studied any logic?

 

[futurebird]

When studying logic in a philosophy setting you don't declare what is it your terms, such as "p" or "q", are. In math they have limits such as being a number or whatnot.

I don't know what you mean here. In math statements need to be well defined. Then we can talk about their truth value.

You can't use math to say whether an argument is valid or not, you have to use logic.

Can you explain what you mean here?

Have you ever studied any logic?

Yes. Logic in math and philosophical logic are not the same.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Yes. Logic in math and philosophical logic are not the same.

That is correct.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes. Logic in math and philosophical logic are not the same.

However, deductive logic is a subset of the logic studied by philosophers. (And I tend to equate mathematics with the study of deductive logic)

 

[WarPhalange]

Whenever I do math I am forced to think in terms or something that in the end equates to numbers. You can't evaluate someone's political stance with math.

You can with "philosophical logic", and from what I've seen, math derives from "philosophical logic". You have your ands and ors, you have your "is not"s and whatnot, and you use the same rules, except that math is more specialized.

 

[loseyourname]

Honestly, man, you're showing a hostility to something while also showing an extremely shallow understanding, or rather, misunderstanding of it. Ironically enough, in making these arguments (however poor they may be), you're engaging in philosophy. People with PhDs in philosophy engage in these same disputes.

I don't agree with his definition of knowledge, either, but it's not inconsistent with the definition he gives of belief. As to your question of how knowledge can be subjective, what else could it be? That doesn't mean it isn't right, or even that it isn't tied to some universal facts about empirical reality. I think he fails to distinguish between knowledge as a noun and knowing as a verb, but knowing as a verb is inherently a mental state; it requires the existence of a mind capable of holding beliefs. You seem to take that statement as an attempt to discredit the usefulness or veracity of human knowledge, but that isn't what it is at all. The philosophical use of the word "subjective" is nothing at all like your layman's use. It only means that "knowing" does not exist in the absence of minds that know. Facts still exist, but without anyone to believe them, knowledge does not.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Honestly, man, you're showing a hostility to something while also showing an extremely shallow understanding, or rather, misunderstanding of it. Ironically enough, in making these arguments (however poor they may be), you're engaging in philosophy. People with PhDs in philosophy engage in these same disputes.

I am not philosophizing. I never understood why people think that whenever you contemplate something then that automatically means you're doing philosophy. As an analogy, this is like saying that throwing is the same thing as pitching in baseball. While on the surface they may share some similar characteristic, they are distinctly different if you dig further.

I don't agree with his definition of knowledge, either, but it's not inconsistent with the definition he gives of belief.

I don't think using an antonym in a definition makes it consistent. You can't say a belief is distinct from knowledge, and then follow with saying knowledge is a true belief.

As to your question of how knowledge can be subjective, what else could it be?

If you're regarding knowledge as purely sensory, then I disagree with you.

I think he fails to distinguish between knowledge as a noun and knowing as a verb, but knowing as a verb is inherently a mental state; it requires the existence of a mind capable of holding beliefs. You seem to take that statement as an attempt to discredit the usefulness or veracity of human knowledge, but that isn't what it is at all. The philosophical use of the word "subjective" is nothing at all like your layman's use. It only means that "knowing" does not exist in the absence of minds that know. Facts still exist, but without anyone to believe them, knowledge does not.

Facts don't rely on minds, as much as we want to think the opposite. They still exist regardless of whether we're here or not.

 

[futurebird]

Whenever I do math I am forced to think in terms or something that in the end equates to numbers.

I don't know if this is always true.

You can't evaluate someone's political stance with math.

You can with "philosophical logic", and from what I've seen, math derives from "philosophical logic".

How on Earth can you evaluate someone's political stance with "philosophical logic" -- this all sounds pretty dubious to me. The notion that math grew out of anything that... haphazard is pretty wild too.

You have your ands and ors, you have your "is not"s and whatnot, and you use the same rules, except that math is more specialized.

And you apply this political ideas? So what can you do with it. Tell me if a law is right or wrong using "logic" ?

 

[loseyourname]

I am not philosophizing. I never understood why people think that whenever you contemplate something then that automatically means you're doing philosophy. As an analogy, this is like saying that throwing is the same thing as pitching in baseball. While on the surface they may share some similar characteristic, they are distinctly different if you dig further.

You're refuting an argument about the nature of knowledge and putting forth your own argument. What exactly do you think the practice of philosophy is? It isn't contemplation; that's closer to meditation than philosophy.

I don't think using an antonym in a definition makes it consistent. You can't say a belief is distinct from knowledge, and then follow with saying knowledge is a true belief.

A set isn't distinct from its proper subsets? There is no mention of an antonym anywhere in that definition.

If you're regarding knowledge as purely sensory, then I disagree with you.

I'm not, and there is no indication anywhere in what I said that I am. This is what I'm talking about when I say "shallow understanding." Cognition of any type, regardless of its content, is subjective due to the nature of cognition. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the truth value or universality of the contents of thought, but rather simply with the fact that they are being thought.

Chances are, your professor attempted to explain this, but you were too busy getting pissed off at the notion that knowledge is subjective, thinking that meant something it does not, to listen.

Facts don't rely on minds, as much as we want to think the opposite. They still exist regardless of whether we're here or not.

Who wants to think the opposite? Read what I just said, for Christ's sake! Of course facts can exist in absence of minds. Thinking cannot, and hence knowing cannot.

As for knowledge? I tend to lean toward it not requiring the existence of minds. I think an encyclopedia contains knowledge whether or not anyone reads and knows it. Other philosophers might think differently, but the truth is, it's an argument to be settled by investigation, as the meaning of a word is determined by something approaching a consensus of speakers of a particular language. The job of philosophy isn't to define these words for the general population. Depending on the type of philosophy being conducted, it's either to define words for the sake of a particular exposition, or to investigate and uncover common definitions from common usage. Without having read the book you're referring to in your video, I don't know which the author is engaging in, but as an entry level textbook, it probably never goes into that level of depth anyway. Naturally, some of the concepts presented are going to appear strange when you have no knowledge of the discipline or its history. Keep reading and keep learning, and quit acting like an expert about something you know next to nothing about.

 

[futurebird]

As for knowledge? I tend to lean toward it not requiring the existence of minds. I think an encyclopedia contains knowledge whether or not anyone reads and knows it.

Ok. That makes no sense to me. How can you have knowledge without a person who is doing the "knowing." You can have "facts" perhaps... but knowledge... not so much.

Other philosophers might think differently, but the truth is, it's an argument to be settled by investigation, as the meaning of a word is determined by something approaching a consensus of speakers of a particular language.

In other words, it's contextual. I agree with you there.

The job of philosophy isn't to define these words for the general population. Depending on the type of philosophy being conducted, it's either to define words for the sake of a particular exposition, or to investigate and uncover common definitions from common usage.

The latter activity seems to be the only one with real value-- and isn't that linguistics not philosophy?

Naturally, some of the concepts presented are going to appear strange when you have no knowledge of the discipline or its history.

For, me it's the history of philosophy that turned me against it.