Covid-19 Thread

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I guess we just disagree

Another problem with modern day philosophers is the fact that they exploit the misplaced shine of reputation that philosophy has as a discipline to make themselves seem special. Call yourself a 'philosopher' and people tend to think you are the next Socrates. As if your particular brand of thinking is anything special than what goes on in everybody else's minds. Or as if you, too, are a brilliant genius. People don't get this, they think philosophy is something special. That it takes training and learning and skills as if it is some profession only attainable to the most brilliant among us. But anyone can be a philosopher, hell, most of us are we just don't have the need to be all pompous about the everyday thinking we do and put some glorious name on it to dupe others. And most likely anyone ending up as a "philosopher" didn't have the everyday sense or required skills to become something valuable. They likely dropped out of university after 2 years and now writing philosophical treatises in their spare while earning their living as a mall guard or something, which, ironically, is to police detectives the equivalent of philosophers to scientists.

[SoulMonster]

[I hope there are no philosophers on the forum.]

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

[I hope there are no philosophers on the forum.]

You've cunted em right off if there are

[DieselDaisy]

39 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Then somebody invented the wheel.  

Not really. Well into the 19th century the two disciplines were merged. Most of the greatest scientists who have ever lived were also philosophers. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

Philosophy is as productive and valuable a discipline as any of the sciences. It is extremely ignorant to diminish its importance. 

[action]

39 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Another problem with modern day philosophers is the fact that they exploit the misplaced shine of reputation that philosophy has as a discipline to make themselves seem special. Call yourself a 'philosopher' and people tend to think you are the next Socrates. As if your particular brand of thinking is anything special than what goes on in everybody else's minds. Or as if you, too, are a brilliant genius. People don't get this, they think philosophy is something special. That it takes training and learning and skills as if it is some profession only attainable to the most brilliant among us. But anyone can be a philosopher, hell, most of us are we just don't have the need to be all pompous about the everyday thinking we do and put some glorious name on it to dupe others. And most likely anyone ending up as a "philosopher" didn't have the everyday sense or required skills to become something valuable. They likely dropped out of university after 2 years and now writing philosophical treatises in their spare while earning their living as a mall guard or something, which, ironically, is to police detectives the equivalent of philosophers to scientists.

aren't you philisophizing, yourself, now?

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

@SoulMonster you are a patient individual, I respect that.

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It tells you a lot about the Australian diet that, stockpiling, the Australians have went on a mass bog roll spree. 

I read that, of all things  Corona gives them the shits apparently

[action]

this is not a scientific forum, it's a guns n roses forum. People on here tend to be very bright and intelligent, but I don't think the majority is schooled in science and has an universitary degree. And that's ok! that's not to denigrate people without a grade, far from it, but to post in this forum in full on science mode, dismissing anything else like philosophy, telling it (even jokingly) to fuck off, is a bit prententious.

Why not let people have their say, from their own set of mind? Why has everything got to be backed up by scientific research / graphs / peer reviewed articles? I'm sorry, I think that's a bit stilly. This is a rock band forum, not fucking mensa.

The amount of talking down on here that I had to receive, even in PM, is really something. Is that how the "people of science" interact with other people? You'd think, beings of such high intellectual standards, would have a little bit more decency. Talking down to someone, as if talking to a toddler, is a bit embarrassing. We have a word for such a person in belgium: a windbag (blaaskaak).

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, action said:

aren't you philisophizing, yourself, now?

I am discussing. If you want to call it "philosophy" then go ahead, be my guest. But I have no illusions that there is anything special about my thinking or that it is worth anymore more than the thinking anyone else does. I have no need to dress it up in fancy names. 

As far as figuring out things, then I would turn to science. And the accumulated output from science in one day beats the value of the accumulated output of philosophy in one year. 

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

 But I have no illusions that there is anything special about my thinking or that it is worth anymore more than the thinking anyone else does.

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Philosophy is as productive and valuable a discipline as any of the sciences. It is extremely ignorant to diminish its importance. 

Okay, cool. Then let's do the following: I will list all the knowledge, inventions, jobs, and products created as the result of biological science in 2019 and then you do the same for philosophy in 2019. Then we see if philosophy really is as important as biological science. Is that a fair test to see if your statement is correct? Or do you prefer some other metric to assess the "value" of philosophy?

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Okay, cool. Then let's do the following: I will list all the knowledge, inventions, jobs, and products created as the result of biological science in 2019 and then you do the same for philosophy in 2019. Then we see if philosophy really is as important as biological science. Is that a fair test to see if your statement is correct? Or do you prefer some other metric to assess the "value" of philosophy?

As I said earlier, most of the great scientific accomplishments (before say the 19th century) were the accomplishments of philosophy, seeing as the two were merged, case in point Newton and Copernicus. You are literally pelting the great heroes of your discipline with abuse haha. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

And what's with the idea that every science is equally valuable? That is just something people from the social sciences say try to console themselves. It's a coping mechanism.

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

And what's with the idea that every science is equally valuable? That is just something people from the social sciences say try to console themselves. It's a coping mechanism.

my god, so now the social psychologists are inferior to your discipline too? that's a lot of untermenschen you have to deal with, every day 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

As I said earlier, most of the great scientific accomplishments (before say the 19th century) were the accomplishments of philosophy, seeing as the two were merged, case in point Newton and Copernicus. You are literally pelting the great heroes of your discipline with abuse haha. 

I don't have any great heroes. I am not a 12-year old kid.

But you claimed that philosophy was as valuable as any other science. Now. Not before the scientific revolution. So I repeat, should we compare the value of biological science in 2019 with the value of philosophy in 2019? You can go through the output of all the great philosophers in 2019 and list all the achievements they presented to our knowledge and how that has improved our lives, and I will do the same for biology. Isn't that a fair test?

1 minute ago, action said:

my god, so now the social psychologists are inferior to your discipline too? that's a lot of untermenschen you have to deal with, every day 

I don't even know what a "social psychologist" is (and I doubt you do, too). But for fun, what do they do and how is that as valuable, as say, physics? Don't get me wrong, social sciences are valuable. Unless you happen to be a philosopher, then chances are you are not providing any benefits to society.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't have any great heroes. I am not a 12-year old kid.

But you claimed that philosophy was as valuable as any other science. Now. Not before the scientific revolution. So I repeat, should we compare the value of biological science in 2019 with the value of philosophy in 2019? You can go through the output of all the great philosophers in 2019 and list all the achievements they presented to our knowledge and how that has improved our lives, and I will do the same for biology. Isn't that a fair test?

Philosophy speculates on the nature of being. Pertaining to subject significance, it does not get loftier and more important than that.

[action]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

I don't even know what a "social psychologist" is (and I doubt you do, too). But for fun, what do they do and how is that as valuable, as say, physics? Don't get me wrong, social sciences are valuable. Unless you happen to be a philosopher, then chances are you are not providing any benefits to society.

it's the field in psychology that studies the interaction between people. such as alpha males trying to big mouth other people on a message board. I guess social psychologists would have a field day should they discover this forum and the things you post on here

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Philosophy speculates on the nature of being. Pertaining to subject significance, it does not get loftier and more important than that.

Ooh, it is "lofty"  

But you are digressing. You didn't talk about which science was the most pompous, you talked about which science was the most "valuable." So, again, should we compare the value of biological science in 2019 with the value of philosophy in 2019? You can go through the output of all the great philosophers in 2019 -- it shouldn't take long -- and list all the achievements they presented to our knowledge -- it really shouldn't take long -- and how that has improved our lives, and I will do the same for biology. Isn't that a fair test?

1 minute ago, action said:

it's the field in psychology that studies the interaction between people. such as alpha males trying to big mouth other people on a message board. I guess social psychologists would have a field day should they discover this forum and the things you post on here

Okay, that's cool and not at all without value. But I would still maintain that the world would be in worse shape if all biologists disappeared than all social psychologists. But let's not get into a pissing match about that. I don't have a disdain for most social sciences, and appreciate the work they do. Honorable exception: Philosophy.

[Len Cnut]

@SoulMonster, how about Derrida?  He's modern philosophy and pretty influential, though perhaps not in fields that you have a lot of regard for.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ooh, it is "lofty"  

But you are digressing. You didn't talk about which science was the most pompous, you talked about which science was the most "valuable." So, again, should we compare the value of biological science in 2019 with the value of philosophy in 2019? You can go through the output of all the great philosophers in 2019 -- it shouldn't take long -- and list all the achievements they presented to our knowledge -- it really shouldn't take long -- and how that has improved our lives, and I will do the same for biology. Isn't that a fair test?

I am sure there are many valuable recent accomplishments in philosophy, but then you are not speaking to a philosopher and you know that; I am not up to date on the topicality of the subject. But I highly suspect neither are you. You are arguing from the perspective of your own discipline with a - to borrow a word you have just used - pompous attitude regarding the subject you have chosen, and with little knowledge of concurrent philosophy.

 

[action]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ooh, it is "lofty"  

But you are digressing. You didn't talk about which science was the most pompous, you talked about which science was the most "valuable." So, again, should we compare the value of biological science in 2019 with the value of philosophy in 2019? You can go through the output of all the great philosophers in 2019 -- it shouldn't take long -- and list all the achievements they presented to our knowledge -- it really shouldn't take long -- and how that has improved our lives, and I will do the same for biology. Isn't that a fair test?

Okay, that's cool and not at all without value. But I would still maintain that the world would be in worse shape if all biologists disappeared than all social psychologists. But let's not get into a pissing match about that. I don't have a disdain for most social sciences, and appreciate the work they do. Honorable exception: Philosophy.

social sciences, (and yes it is a science: you're about the only person on earth disagreeing with that) are well grounded in philosophy. Emile Durkheim was a philosopher, but he lay the foundations for sociology. Plato also lay the fundaments for sociology. Even you must have had some mandatory subjects on sociology / psychology / economy during your education. or did you skip the lessons when they teached that at university? 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

@SoulMonster, how about Derrida?  He's modern philosophy and pretty influential, though perhaps not in fields that you have a lot of regard for.

I think a field should be valued in regards to how he has improved our lives. How has Derrida improved our lives?

[action]

economy, certainly on a world wide level, is fundamentally philosophical in nature. 

If economic theories could be proven scientifically, there would be no economical regression anymore

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]