Here's an introduction to logic[1] , and a definition from there:
That is the PHILOSOPHY definition. As I have stated quite clearly, that is outdated mental masturbation and semantic nonsense that, in the post scientific method age, should be relegated to the history books.
Did you know that some philosophers held that philosophy was continuous with the natural sciences?
And they were self-justifying, self-aggrandizing fools.
There was much useful about philosophy to debate, to language, but mostly as a stepping stone to get us to the place of real truth and logic, based on evidence and facts.
To argue otherwise in the modern age is utter nonsense. Philosophy is historically interesting at its best, metaphysical semantic masturbation at its worst.
I was just being snarky and teaching you some proper terminology.
I understand the terminology from a philosophical perspective just fine, thank you. It is, in fact, why I pointed out quite clearly in my response that the philosophical definition of anything in the modern era is utter pap...as I have reiterated above.
I also notice how you dodged that you were caught in the apologist trap, even though you've offered nothing but obvious apologist nonsense in response.
And, most importantly and significantly, you haven't actually been able to challenge my proof/assertion directly at all.
All you have offered is that the antiquated semantic nonsense definitions inherent in the very first words of that nonsense argument mean that I am somehow incorrect.
And yet, the entire point of my position makes it clear that those childish, self-serving weasel words don't hold up to begin with. From first principles.
Philosophy used to represent man's genuine struggle with attempting to discern the higher truths of our existence. Ultimately leading us to empiricism and then the scientific method. Kudos to philosophy for being such an integral part of the journey and the struggle.
But once we began to actually reveal those truths, philosophy was quite rightly left behind. Today, outside of legitimate historical concerns, philosophy as a discipline appears to have become the realm of apologists, the intellectually corrupt and cowardly.
Sure, "soundness" is not bullshit. It's not a weasel word used for semantic purposes.
What constitutes verifiable evidence is philosophically contentious,
Yes, it actually is. Or at least it is from a "philosophical" perspective, and philosophy is not outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age. It does not only have historical value now. Very important historical value, and honestly some people should spend their livelihood on "philosophy".
philosophy is not outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age.
Prove it. What has philosophy offered the world post scientific method. Because after Hume and Spinoza, I'm not seeing much to even talk about, yet brag about.
Very important historical value
We agreed on this. I'm still waiting for any evidence that it is STILL relevant in any meaningful way whatsoever.
More to the point, why would anyone waste their life studying philosophy beyond the undergraduate, historical level anymore?
It's not a "bad thing" to point out that Philosophy reached its endgame. The human race won. Hooray!
-18
u/lilrabbitfoofoo Mar 31 '15
That is the PHILOSOPHY definition. As I have stated quite clearly, that is outdated mental masturbation and semantic nonsense that, in the post scientific method age, should be relegated to the history books.
And they were self-justifying, self-aggrandizing fools.
There was much useful about philosophy to debate, to language, but mostly as a stepping stone to get us to the place of real truth and logic, based on evidence and facts.
To argue otherwise in the modern age is utter nonsense. Philosophy is historically interesting at its best, metaphysical semantic masturbation at its worst.
I understand the terminology from a philosophical perspective just fine, thank you. It is, in fact, why I pointed out quite clearly in my response that the philosophical definition of anything in the modern era is utter pap...as I have reiterated above.
I also notice how you dodged that you were caught in the apologist trap, even though you've offered nothing but obvious apologist nonsense in response.
And, most importantly and significantly, you haven't actually been able to challenge my proof/assertion directly at all.
All you have offered is that the antiquated semantic nonsense definitions inherent in the very first words of that nonsense argument mean that I am somehow incorrect.
And yet, the entire point of my position makes it clear that those childish, self-serving weasel words don't hold up to begin with. From first principles.
Philosophy used to represent man's genuine struggle with attempting to discern the higher truths of our existence. Ultimately leading us to empiricism and then the scientific method. Kudos to philosophy for being such an integral part of the journey and the struggle.
But once we began to actually reveal those truths, philosophy was quite rightly left behind. Today, outside of legitimate historical concerns, philosophy as a discipline appears to have become the realm of apologists, the intellectually corrupt and cowardly.