So, for instance, I was initially interested in theories of consciousness, so I took a course in Philosophy of Mind. This ballooned into further interest in consciousness, artificial intelligence, decision making, and ethics (and so forth), so I went after all of that too. There's not really a good way of starting in philosophy if you dont have a more specific interest (imo), and the best way of doing it if you do is to find someone who's already done it with a similar interest to give you advice.
Philosophy of mind is the only philosophy course I ever dropped. I was also interested in consciousness, but it feels more like a psychology course than a philosophy one. There was so much focus on the physical aspects of the brain that I found it rather boring. Might have just been the teacher, though.
Philosophy pisses me off. Everything I read is supported by a logical proof, which is also refuted by another logical proof. Eventually, it all comes down to your postulates, which means "believe whatever the fuck you want and you can prove it."
(I spent a few hours arguing with a professor before I realized that hand-picking your postulates so that your conclusion logically follows isn't actually considered a circular argument in philosophy.)
I think that it partially depends on your initial view of it as well. If you view consciousness as a non-physical phenomena, or think purely physical explanations miss something about it, a lot of Phil of Mind courses are going to bore you/miss the point you're interested in.
I think it is a purely physical phenomena, so I was perfectly happy to get deep into neurology and stuff like that. Also my teacher is amazing.
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
"I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?
I is ME of course. How can anyone miss that? Will I define that to you ? Unlikely, since my truth of it is already uncovered.
If you look at the wikipedia article under cogito ergo sum, you'll actually find that there's a rather relevant debate about the "I" in cogito ergo sum. It's briefly explained there. =)
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote: So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.
You're a donkey, seriously.
Dude, those two books are supposed to be some of the best on/examples of Eastern philosophy. If I found them lacking, why the hell would I bother with the rest?
Come now. Haven't you heard some of them zen puzzles? They sound stupid and nonsensical, but actually sitting down and thinking about it leads to some crazy stuff.
On July 04 2010 14:35 BottleAbuser wrote: Philosophy pisses me off. Everything I read is supported by a logical proof, which is also refuted by another logical proof. Eventually, it all comes down to your postulates, which means "believe whatever the fuck you want and you can prove it."
I know something that would piss you off even more, then. According to David Hume, induction (and by extension, deduction) are not even valid.
The problem of induction: We believe because x happened before in certain circumstances, that x will happen now. But there is no link between the past and the present that justifies the belief. For example, because I dropped a coin and it landed on the floor many times in the past, I believe that when I drop the coin in the future, it will land on the floor again. But the past does not have a link to the future, so there's no justification to believe that the coin will land on the floor in the future. In fact, according to this logic, induction (and deduction, by extension) are CIRCULAR arguments! X happened in the past, and x happens now, so x will do so in the future because it happened in the past! Circular.
Therefore, there's really no reason to believe anything, as you can deduce and induce nothing.
On July 04 2010 14:43 kzn wrote: Wait, how is deduction invalid by extension from induction?
P->Q, P, thus Q is a deductive argument, and makes no assumptions anywhere, whatsoever.
The argument works for induction as well, it's just that David Hume never took it that far. But basically, in his works, he claimed that there is no relation between cause and effect. So that deductive argument would not hold water for him. Being a skeptic, this is not surprising.
Your assumption comes from P->Q. There's no proof in the matter that Q is caused by P, just because Q follows P.
Thats not an inductive argument. A deductive argument cannot by definition be inductive. A valid deductive argument cannot be false unless the premises are unsound. Certainly, proving the soundness of premises is itself impossible, but deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible.
Deductive arguments also don't need to assume cause and effect, because the P->Q premise establishes a causal relationship whether such a thing is possible in the real world or not.
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote: So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.
You're a donkey, seriously.
Dude, those two books are supposed to be some of the best on/examples of Eastern philosophy. If I found them lacking, why the hell would I bother with the rest?
I can agree with Chuang Tzu being one of the good examples of classical Eastern philosophy. I'm unsure of the other book, but those two only focused on Chinese philosophy. I dunno how much the "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy" touches upon Buddhism either, but if it didn't at all then it's missing a pretty significant part of Chinese philosophy as well. Also, Indian philosophy is quite different from Chinese philosophy, even when it comes to Buddhism. I'm just exasperated over the fact that you would dismiss all Eastern philosophy just because you touched upon just Chinese philosophy.
I think the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy is more that they aren't actually the same kinds of philosophy. Granted, I have almost no exposure to Eastern philosophy but from what I have it seems more concerned with creating philosophies "to live by", where Western is concerned more with asking big questions, and ignoring real life to some extent.
On July 04 2010 14:47 kzn wrote: Thats not an inductive argument. A deductive argument cannot by definition be inductive. A valid deductive argument cannot be false unless the premises are unsound. Certainly, proving the soundness of premises is itself impossible, but deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible.
Deductive arguments also don't need to assume cause and effect, because the P->Q premise establishes a causal relationship whether such a thing is possible in the real world or not.
You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
edit: In any case, the point is, philosophy can sometimes be used to prove all sorts of ridiculous things. We KNOW that induction is a valid form of argument, which is why it's kind of funny to see a philosophical proof that it's not. At the end of the day, you have to separate philosophy from the practical.
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.
If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.
On July 04 2010 14:51 kzn wrote: I think the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy is more that they aren't actually the same kinds of philosophy. Granted, I have almost no exposure to Eastern philosophy but from what I have it seems more concerned with creating philosophies "to live by", where Western is concerned more with asking big questions, and ignoring real life to some extent.
I find that there's often really big similarities in some areas. If you look into the concept of Sunyata in Buddhism and compare it to Existentialism you'll find that the similarities can be very striking. There's some philosophers from the 100 Schools of Thought era that are like mirrors to some Ancient Greeks. There definitely is a different colour between the East and the West but I'm not entirely too sure what it is that gives them those colours. I sometimes feel that the East generally works upon a more collectivist way of though while the West is more individualistic when it comes to approaching the human condition.
philosophy is dumb, thinking too much gets you no where. yes yes we all understand, take philosophy for what it's worth it's helpful in the sense that it makes you a better thinker when solving piratical problems, but if you argue with another philosopher, most times you get no where. and if you argue with someone who doesn't haven't a clue in philosophy most times it's not worth the substantial effort to make them see your point of view. philosophy is to just a search to what you believe to be true, not impose your truth to the world. remember every argument is fallible, even this one. lol
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.
If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.
I agree that the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight. I was merely explaining Hume. For all practical deductions (one's based on real life examples), his argument against induction works just the same as deduction. However, if you were to do something abstract such as P->Q, P thus Q where P's relationship to Q was not relevant, then I think you are absolutely right.
I guess its more of a case that any practical use of deduction requires that one inductively support the premises. I thought it was like a proof that the method of deduction didn't work, which is what confused me,
EPT
Might have just been the teacher, though.
