Quote:
Originally posted by Yakk
Meaningful is the wrong term. Try important.
There are many things more important than philosophy. Having food to eat, for example, at a rate sufficient to keep you alive in order to argue philosophy.
Other things could also be more important than philosophy.
|
That's what i was getting at.
Quote:
Ridiculous. I care about many things. Some things I care about more than others. Just because I care about something else more, doesn't mean I don't care about the other thing.
Examples:
Assertion: "making money is important".
"but, there are trillions of dollars in the USA you do not own. If making money is important, why have you not earned all the trillions of dollars in the USA?"
"because I don't have time".
"lack of time is a cop-out. If making money was truely important, you would make time!"
The arguement presented here is about as ridiculous as yours.
|
I think it was the foundation of reaganomics. The poor choose to be poor because they care not for success.
I'm just saying, there's more important things than philosophy. In fact, there are a great many things which have a greater impact on the here and now than the average philosophical discussion. Which i think was my poorly articulated argument from the get-go.
Quote:
|
Please quote the position that implies that the value of philosophy is immasureable. I didn't see it.
|
I was paraphrasing. Re-read.
[QUOTE]It is quite possible that you are simply pointing out Sturgeon's Law:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theodore Sturgeon
90% of everything is crud.
|
This sturgeon fellow better hope i never catch up with his copyright infriging ass.
Quote:
However, the use of the term "in general" to me, at least, implies that the exceptions are not just in the minority, but are anomolous.
"In general, American voted for Gore last election. Bush only won because of the electoral college system."
This is a ridiculous statement. More people did vote for Gore, so "most" people who voted voted for Gore, but a simple majority isn't enough to use a term like "in general".
"In general, eating a McDonalds hambuger is not immediately fatal."
"In general, airplane travel is safer than travelling the same distance by car."
|
Speaking in generalities is useful because nothing is absolute. You obviously think i'm cynical in my estimations. To each their own.
In general, most philosophical debate is poorly reasoned and based on false or erroneous assumptions. Its like a group of people trying to solve a complex math problem when they don't really know how. They can spend hours and hours just to figure out that they have no idea what the hell they are doing. Or, even worse, they can spend hours and hours using faulty reasoning to come away with an innacurate and flawed idea which they falsely believe is true and useful. I've been there. A lot philosophical discussion is useless because, in my experience, much of it is the result of people making grand statements of truth which they have not the qualifications to make, and then arguing about them. It is often a waste of time because you end up no better off than when you started. That last part is really my opinion, which you may feel free to passionately attempt to dissuade me from.
Which isn't to say that learning to think, organize and argue one's thoughts lacks any value. Discussion can be great for refining one's perspective and testing ideas against the mind of another. I just think that it is rare that any of those things are the result of two people, who both believe beyond the reach of any counter argument that they are right, butting heads. If you don't agree, see how much effect logic and reasoning has on the average mouth-of-foam conservative/liberal/fundamentalist/ecoterrorist/capitalist/socialist perspective.