My philosophy is that taking one introductory Philosophy class in no way qualifies one to spout "facts" they learned as truth.

XD

Yes, I do have a philosophy.

i think everyone is entitled to their on philosophy, no matter how much education. ofc, some people's philosophy's might be "better" but everybody has power of thought and right to their own opinions

edit: take if with a grain of salt if you want, I'm only 19 and have only had AP pysch in highschool :D

Edited 10/12/2018 17:04:20

I kind of agree with Rogue, except I believe in universal truths. Those that are not universal, can be subject to the individual.

Nihilists claim that there is no objective truth, so explain to me how it is not objectively true that killing and raping children isn't immoral and bad.

@MrTrolldemort
"If you truly wish to gain meaning, do what you believe in or probably go into some other field where you can actually prove things like chemistry or physics. But what do I know I merely do politics."

But how can you know, what you truly believe in, if you do not know, how to truly believe in something?

"If you truly wish to gain meaning, do what you believe in..."-"...I merely do politics"

I have bad news for you, friend.

hey you look cool join my much better thread about the newest league in WZ

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/318921-new-coin-challenge

heh heh...you seemed to have caught me in the act. Getting the rhetoric out of me. Anyways, let me dissect your argument

"But how can you know, what you truly believe in, if you do not know, how to truly believe in something?"


I think I established this when I said that without evidence a "belief" is meaningless. Philosophy is a contradiction proclaiming the truth when it can never appropriately show its proof. Their attempts never work as their reasoning is inherently biased from their own perceptions. That includes me, mind you, so you can say the same about what I'm saying as I am giving a bigger definition of my philosophy. In the end, no one is correct and can never be.

"I have bad news for you friend"

Oh I know (evil snickering for when I conquer the world)

"Philosophy is a contradiction proclaiming the truth when it can never appropriately show its proof."

Philosophy does no such thing. Every ethical school has it's reasoning, and, when learning these schools, you also learn the long list of arguments against their theories, as well as the counter-arguments to these. All philosophers (I reckon) understand, that our field is never conclusive. The schools are somewhat biased, as those who study them, typically does so based on own convictions. But, you have to remember, from where the word philosophy has it's origin. Phylos Sofia. The love of knowledge. Modern philosophy educations have very extensive courses in logic, argumentation theory, and so forth. Recognizing biases is a small task for people that has devoted their life to philosophy.

Regardless of which of the ethical schools you agree with, they all provide the same thing: An understanding of, what you believe in. Are you a hedonist? Are you an existentialist? Do you think, that the world is immaterialistic? Good on you. Now you have a better understanding of, why you do the things you do, and why others do the things, that they do.

People can be be correct to some extent - If the school makes perfect sense in their perception of the world, then that's their subjective truth. The primary problem as I see it is, that people are different, and therefore act differently. Any discussion about which school is objectively true is to me silly. It's obviously virtue ethics. (Sorry :) )The study of the different ethical theories might be more important than ever now, due to multiculturalism and the problems it carries with it. Back in the day, societies usually had some kind of common ground for what to believe in, but now it's a mishmash of many cultures, that have all cultivated certain ways of thought throughout centuries.


You encourage people to find meaning in other fields of study, as you find philosophy to have a lack of meaning, but what about politics, then? It's a heavily flawed system you have decided to dedicate your time to. It's effectively the study of short-term solutions, as the primary focus of any politician/party always will be to get re-elected.

Daily reminder that all great scientists and artists heavily dabbled in philosophy.

Universal (or objective) truths doesn't mean there is meaning in those truths. The truths represent the pattern of humanity and society, and so on. I still believe, painfully, that there is a lack of meaning in existence itself. Whether this cancels out the subjectively tangible reality that we live in (society, responsibility, etc) is, again, subjective. Myself, I'm still trying to find my own subjective purpose. In a world without meaning, you have to find your own. I have yet to find mine.

Edited 10/14/2018 20:29:34

Generally, my philosophy is existentialist as for myself, and cynical when looking at others.

Reasoning does not mean truth, unfortunately. I can reason why I am the best player of warzone and everyone else is garbage except me, but that doesn't mean I am correct. And I would disagree on philosophy being the same as knowledge. You are correct that in order to conduct philosophy it is important to have some sort of logic and way to argue your concepts. But convincing others you are right is in itself not correct. It only means they do a good job convincing people they are right.

Ethics is an interesting concept, as the different forms attempt to give a strict definition in something that is different among every single person imaginable. You cannot so easily look at someone's mindset and say "this is a hedonist" or existentialist or whatever. People will interpret it differently, which makes these guidelines ridiculous in the first place. You may think by my logic I am a relativist thinking everyone has different ethics that are equally right, but even then there are probably some people out there who would consider me perhaps a nihilist. Ethics is something that changes constantly all the time. Trying to "box" something we can't even quantify or even qualify accurately makes this kind of silly to pretend to be experienced about imo. I learned nothing about people, because of my own and other people's biases and changing perceptions. Maybe I think they are utilitarian one day and then become deontologists the next.

I agree with you that any discussion about which schools is objectively best is silly, but that's because I think all of them all. Like I said before, no matter how much we try to give guidelines, because we can not empirically gather this evidence and interpret it consistently and among everyone, these schools are essentially meaningless attempts to separate concepts that none of us can agree on.

Finally (and this is gonna be my favourite to critique), who said I cared about politics :P

To be serious though, my point is that unlike philosophy, several fields have ways to actually prove things to be objectively correct. We call this the scientific method, using experiments that was can quantify and qualify, that can gather evidence that can be repliced in future attemtps. Even things like political science and social science (which I'm gonna be honest with you I don't consider to be as accurate as the hard sciences anyways) have ways to systemically be objective and replicate the experiment in ways that literally anyone from any background could do if they had the opportunity. What's important though is very few things in science are laws. Theories mean it is an explanation with a lot of data that can prove with a relatively high level of confidence that it is the most likely reason. But that allows itself to change over time if needed when new information is found.

Politics in my opinion is just philosophy that attempts to use approaches in a way to gain power and govern others. Except we all know people are not 100% genuine and use a lot of rhetoric to hide that. But again, meaning is whatever you want it to be. If you want it to be to gain money and power, then hey that's good on you. It's basically philosophy used for the purpose of rulership.

Also science was indeed a subset of philosophy as natural philosophy, but nowadays with the advent of empirical testing that can actual prove concepts with ample evidence for literally everyone using the scientific method, it is no longer merely theoretical and have the same issues as regular philosophy, therefore actually giving us proof and explanations.

"some sort of logic"

logic is a area of philosophy XD

just to be serious for a bit......

traditional ethichs is the dumpster fire of philosphy, i have no idea why the anglophone are still doing it like it was the 1700´s

Edited 10/17/2018 07:23:57

The problem with philosophy is that it is all theoretical and can never be proven. If it could, it would be science. You are literally just reading an opinion of someone and using that to justify everything. And if there truly was someone that was correct we wouldn't have philosophy in the first place and just follow that instead.

Of course, this is a gross simplification, if you want more you're gonna have to join me on twitch for that one :P but my point is philosophy should not actually be taken seriously outside if just learning about people's mindsets. If you truly wish to gain meaning, do what you believe in or probably go into some other field where you can actually prove things like chemistry or physics. But what do I know I merely do politics.

Everything you just said is by your own axiom a bullshit opinion. Where does science say that the totality of reality can be uncovered by the scientific method? Can you "prove" empirically that your own method can uncover universal truths? You're gonna "prove" what everything is by the scientific method? Stop listening to pop "scientists" and parroting this retarded argument that's been refuted so many times.