Why do people hate philosophy?

[Maltese]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

yes, I understand an analogy, and I'm saying what you said made little to no sense

philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex

philosophy is an attempt to explain the real world, and masturbation is sex with only one person


hallucinations are to the real world as masturbation is to sex

Philosophy is to science what alcohol is to sex: It may stir the imagination, fire the passions, and get the process underway, but the actual implementation may be flawed, and the end result may come up short.

science is a vein of philosophy; experimental abductive reasoning.

[DWARFINATORclock]

yes, I understand an analogy, and I'm saying what you said made little to no sense

philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex

philosophy is an attempt to explain the real world, and masturbation is sex with only one person


hallucinations are to the real world as masturbation is to sex





science is a vein of philosophy; experimental abductive reasoning.

Masturbation is fun and all, but without sex you won't get babies.

Does that do it for you?

[Maltese]

Masturbation is fun and all, but without sex you won't get babies.

Does that do it for you?

I'm pretty sure that this is unrelated to the topic, lol

[DWARFINATORclock]

science is a vein of philosophy; experimental abductive reasoning.

The vein where people actually do shit to see if their philosophy is right and not the talk about how it would probably go if someone would do it?

I'm pretty sure that this is unrelated to the topic, lol

I was clarifying the analogy.

[BinaryClock]

Why I think people hate philosophy: Because people don't like being told that they are stupid, or being reminded that the person telling them things is way smarter than we are, and that we should just shut up and listen.

[Maltese]

I don't hate philosophy, I only hate that you try to pass it off as something that it is not

Although, I am right, science is a vein of philosophy, experimental abductive reasoning, math is a vein of philosophy, it's deductive reasoning, concepts of logic and definitions of logic, are philosophy, the question of what is logical, was answered millenia ago by Aristotle, who is also considered the first scientist, who also wrote books like Politics, Physics, and then Metaphysics.

The vein where people actually do shit to see if their philosophy is right and not the talk about how it would probably go if someone would do it?

that's the value of evidential truths, and abductive reasoning, coming up with a hypothesis and finding evidence to back it up; which philosophers have to do, mainly because science is a vein of philosophy, I can't see what's so hard to figure out, like epistemology, metaphysics, morality, and aesthetics, science is a vein of philosophy, that studies different things in a different way.

[DWARFINATORclock]

Mommy can I be a vein of philosophy when I grow up?

[Slurpee]

I guess the best way to describe it, what if you're a literature major, and you understand all the fine details of plot, juxtaposition, and subtlety, then someone suddenly says literature is stupid, because they dislike poetry, and after defending it with evidence, you're called pretentious for even having the evidence in the first place!

No. That's not why you're called pretentious.

You're called pretentious for being a pedantic douchebag.

If you were to say, "Well, hey, that's not fair. There's a lot more to literature than poetry. Even if you don't 'get' poetry, literature is a multifaceted field, which can tell us a lot about storytelling and how human beings respond to use of the english language."
You'd probably get a "Whatever. So I don't like poetry."
Then you say, "Fair enough. How bout them knicks?"

what you don't do is go "PSSSSHHHHHT. HARDLY. LISTEN, I'M GOING TO SPEAK SLOWLY BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO EXPOSURE TO THE TRUE QUALITIES OF LITERATURE. I'LL GIVE YOU A LAYMEN'S CRASH COURSE, SO TO SPEAK. YOU SEE, DEAR, POETRY IS A REFLECTION THE POET'S INNER SELF. THROUGH THEIR MASTERY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ITS LEXICON, POETS SUCCESSFULLY SAY MORE THAN THEIR WORDS EVER COULD WERE THEY TO BE TAKEN IN A PURELY LITERAL SENSE. FURTHERMORE,"

and then you get offended when somebody points out that you're being a douchebag.

nevertheless, the entire point is to clearly express yourself logically, without making fallacies. pointing out my grammar is bad doesn't stop my idea from being shown, but making a fallacy, or using an invalid argument (they're the same thing), actually shows that the person is wrong.

The point isn't that the grammar and the philosophy are equally valid arguments you autistic nutcase.
The point is you deliberately speak from academic knowledge that people who don't study philosophy couldn't possibly be expected to know.

You don't say, "Oh, well that argument violates the fallacy of affirming the consequent," and expect people to go "Oh, you're right. Goodbye."
That's not how humans talk.
You say, "Well, just because [a] implies , that doesn't necessarily mean implies [a]," because then you're actually explaining that they've made an erroneous logical leap.

[Carefoot]

Masturbation is fun and all, but without sex you won't get babies.

Does that do it for you?

Anal is fun.  So is oral.

[Maltese]

Why I think people hate philosophy: Because people don't like being told that they are stupid, or being reminded that the person telling them things is way smarter than we are, and that we should just shut up and listen.

that's a personal thing really, not philosophy's fault; I would love it if we were forced to make every post in the form of syllogisms, which is the logical form of presenting an argument as put forth by Aristotle

Every man is mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is a mortal

If you drink the hemlocke, you will die
Socrates drank the hemlocke
Socrates died

[DWARFINATORclock]

Earth is the center of the universe.

[Maltese]

No. That's not why you're called pretentious.

You're called pretentious for being a pedantic douchebag.

If you were to say, "Well, hey, that's not fair. There's a lot more to literature than poetry. Even if you don't 'get' poetry, literature is a multifaceted field, which can tell us a lot about storytelling and how human beings respond to use of the english language."
You'd probably get a "Whatever. So I don't like poetry."
Then you say, "Fair enough. How bout them knicks?"

what you don't do is go "PSSSSHHHHHT. HARDLY. LISTEN, I'M GOING TO SPEAK SLOWLY BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO EXPOSURE TO THE TRUE QUALITIES OF LITERATURE. I'LL GIVE YOU A LAYMEN'S CRASH COURSE, SO TO SPEAK. YOU SEE, DEAR, POETRY IS A REFLECTION THE POET'S INNER SELF. THROUGH THEIR MASTERY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ITS LEXICON, POETS SUCCESSFULLY SAY MORE THAN THEIR WORDS EVER COULD WERE THEY TO BE TAKEN IN A PURELY LITERAL SENSE. FURTHERMORE,".

But the issue is that people like clam are mistaking metaphysics to be philosophy itself, I don't care that clam doesn't like metaphysics, I do care that he's a physicist that dislikes philosophy, when physics is a part of philosophy!

The point isn't that the grammar and the philosophy are equally valid arguments you autistic nutcase.
The point is you deliberately speak from academic knowledge that people who don't study philosophy couldn't possibly be expected to know.

You don't say, "Oh, well that argument violates the fallacy of affirming the consequent," and expect people to go "Oh, you're right. Goodbye."
That's not how humans talk.
You say, "Well, just because [a] implies , that doesn't necessarily mean implies [a]," because then you're actually explaining that they've made an erroneous logical leap.

I don't deliberately speak with academic knowledge, I actually just speak this way, this is how I talk.

and your analogy of philosophy to grammar was foggy, and thanks for the ad hominem by the way

Earth is the center of the universe.

well, what has lead you to that conclusion, where's any deductive argument, where Earth is something, something is the centre of the universe, therefore earth is the centre of the universe.

[BinaryClock]

that's a personal thing really, not philosophy's fault; I would love it if we were forced to make every post in the form of syllogisms, which is the logical form of presenting an argument as put forth by Aristotle

Every man is mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is a mortal

If you drink the hemlocke, you will die
Socrates drank the hemlocke
Socrates died

Well, it's a personal thing for enough people that they just don't fucking like talking about it, okay? You ask a fucking question "Why?" and I say "I think it's because." That is it. You don't have to analyze everything, sometimes you can just leave it be and say, "Okay, that is your opinion, however, I disagree, and that's that."

[DWARFINATORclock]

well, what has lead you to that conclusion, where's any deductive argument, where Earth is something, something is the centre of the universe, therefore earth is the centre of the universe.

Aristotle said so.

[Maltese]

Well, it's a personal thing for enough people that they just don't fucking like talking about it, okay? You ask a fucking question "Why?" and I say "I think it's because." That is it. You don't have to analyze everything, sometimes you can just leave it be and say, "Okay, that is your opinion, however, I disagree, and that's that."

personal, as in it comes from the people involved, and not the concepts, and this is supposed to be a philosophy forum, it's even called Plato's Playground.

[Maltese]

Aristotle said so.

nobody's perfect; aristotle may have been the first scientist, but that's just referring to his method's of research, he must have had a logical conclusion to think that earth is the centre of the universe, just the premises were wrong, creating a logical, albeit wrong, conclusion.

[BinaryClock]

personal, as in it comes from the people involved, and not the concepts, and this is supposed to be a philosophy forum, it's even called Plato's Playground.

Uh, no. That is just a silly name for the Serious Forum.

And again, no. That's it. You asked "Why?", I said "I think because". You can take it or leave it. But that's it. If you keep trying to argue with me about this, I will just repeat my talking point, like you are repeating yours.

[Maltese]

You asked "Why?", I said "I think because". You can take it or leave it. But that's it. If you keep trying to argue with me about this, I will just repeat my talking point, like you are repeating yours.

ok, that's your opinion, now thanks for not contributing anything.

[BinaryClock]

ok, that's your opinion, now thanks for not contributing anything.

Likewise.

[DWARFINATORclock]

nobody's perfect; aristotle may have been the first scientist, but that's just referring to his method's of research, he must have had a logical conclusion to think that earth is the centre of the universe, just the premises were wrong, creating a logical, albeit wrong, conclusion.

I think some other dude (can't remember his name) said that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, and that the Earth orbited the sun, but no one would believe him cause Aristotle already said that the Earth was the center.

If it's wrong then obviously not enough research has been done to come to the conclusion. And it seems logical to me that if you are going to make bold statements like this you would do a little research before drawing conclusions.

I also remember you saying that logic = fact, which obviously is not the case.