(#3220)....and having heard of Plato.

.....and I hope you read some of his words. Remember him saying that: All learning has an emotional base ?

****

(#3414) The only way to gain knowledge about the observable world is through science or the methods of science.

You might wanna think a little more about this opinion hon....'cuz only ruins your sentence. 

(#3414) To say that the meaningful must be true is just nonsense.

Well, at least ur being true to yourself. And who cares anyway about what someone else feels ?....making your sentence nonsense.

****

You have some learning to do. You can start with Maslov 101. His pyramid points to the heavens - and self-transcendence floats in a cloud above the tippy-top of the self-actualization part. And FYI, he died w/out warning....so he knew S-T was needed to complete, say, Jack the human bean.

So, Grow Baby Grow !........  

'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336

I should probably clarify: The observable world--the one I say we can only have knowledge about via the methods of science--is the world of things that we can see or touch or learn about with Geiger counters or telescopes or microscopes. You can't learn that there are tiny organisms in water--the kinds that you can only see with a microscope--by telepathy. You can't learn that via introspection. You can't learn that via intuition. You can't learn that via soul-searching. You can only learn that via observation. That's the only way. You can't learn that there are faraway galaxies via telepathy, or introspection, or intuition, or soul-searching. You need a telescope. That's the only way to learn that they're there.

You can learn all sorts of things about yourself via introspection. You can learn that you place a high value on kindness and love. You can learn that you want to have a family. You can learn that you hope for a better future. You can learn that you find Guernica aesthetically pleasing, or that you find theft morally wrong. You can learn that you value the warmth of your family over the gathering of material goods. You can learn all sorts of things about yourself via introspection.

And you can learn all sorts of things via intuition. Intuition is a way human beings have developed of taking in information about the world and reaching conclusions very rapidly. It's not always entirely reliable, but it's reasonably reliable, as long as you apply it to everyday circumstances. Maybe you're good at spotting a liar. (But maybe you're not. Have you actually tested it? Or have you just said, "He's lying," and been convinced you were right without any checking?) But that won't get you information about faraway galaxies or microscopic organisms.

No, there's no other way to learn about the *observable* world--not your own mind, not anything unobservable--but about the *observable* world--other than by observation. That is to say, by the methods of science.

   You are saying that omphaloskepsis (philosophy) won't solve the issues of cosmology, metaphysics, ontology, teleology or epistemology.

   I have posted, several times, that philosophy is dead. First killed by Hume and then a stake was driven into its heart by science.

   PP won't believe me. He has recently paid good money to study Philosophy 101. Wasted. Except, of course, it's good for pedantic conversation at cocktail parties.

   Perhaps your thorough and convincing dissertation shall reshape his thinking. (Not!). 

   Note: I had to retype this post because when I hit the submit button, it vanished. I always post "on the fly" so I can't be sure that I didn't omit something of importance. (Not!) 

pawnwhacker, I disagree about the worthlessness of philosophy. I suspect you have in mind speculative metaphysics uninformed by science, and I agree that while that that can be enjoyable, no stock should be put in it. But I think there's other philosophy that is worthwhile. The value of analytic philosophy lies in its attempt to clarify our use of language and of concepts. The value of philosophy of science lies in its clarifying what it is about the scientific method that makes it more reliable than other ways of trying to get at truths about the world. And I certainly see value in philosophy of mind, which has generally progressed beyond substance dualism and which tries to take account of neuroscience. There is even religious philosophy that tries to take account of modern science--William Lane Craig, of all people, has co-written a book about God in light of modern cosmology (in more detail about cosmology than I know).

Then there's epistemology, and ethics--and even aesthetics. And let us not forget logic, which through a historical accident is placed in philosophy departments instead of in mathematics departments. None of that is worthless.

I *do* think that *some* philosophy is worse than worthless--it's actually harmful. I think, for instance, that postmodernism, with its denial of objective truth, has a lot to answer for, and that Heidegger, with his mistaking of how conscious experiencers experience being conscious experiencers for the way objective reality is, has caused harm not only in philosophy but in theology. But that's hardly the whole of philosophy.

It is amazing that a theory so widely accepted as well-confirmed by the people doing the actual research is so widely rejected by other people. People don't usually think that the consensus of the experts is wrong. But sometimes they do. "Vaccines cause autism." "Human beings aren't significantly contributing to global warming." "Evolution didn't happen." Some things turn into political hot-button issues, and somehow the consensus of scientists no longer matters.

Don't ask me to understand it.

MindWalk: I understand your argument.

Forget the Fox sisters, if you prefer, and take a look to the others. As I told you, many serious people are out there: Ermance Dufaux; Sr. Home; Eurípedes Barsanulfo etc. (this only refering to XIX century). And I have a lot of more people to mention.

But remember when I told you in my first comment that in internet is hard to have a discussion? Not because you guys don't want it, but because many people talk at same time; the conversation is much more slow.

We need much time to write. Can't put all our arguments, can't give the correct intonation of the voice etc.

To really talk openly here, give you all my arguments, links etc, I would have to brake the site rules about not having a religious discussion (although I'm already having it). And that is because I can't resist a religious or political debate doesn't matter where I'm. But I need to stop.

Maybe if we was drinking a coffee at some "Cafe", and talking about all that personally, as I do time in time with some friends, the conversation would be very different. Than we would really dialogue.

Everytime I tried to talk about these questions on internet, it not works...

And I think pawnwhacker are trying to maybe put an end on the discussion (post number 3363). 

Thank you for the conversation, MindWalk. Allan Kardec says that is better to talk with a sincere materialist than a fanatic religious... 

I leave you with this recomendation: if you can, take a look at those people mentioned by me. Go far: read the Book of Spirits, by Allan Kardec. And than take your own conclusions. But be fair with yourself...

They make me try to be a much better person. And how hard it is! Sometimes it's really painful to change... When pawnwhacker called me "Prima Donna", he was not imagining how right he was. I would be one of the most pride and arrogant person in the World! Would never talk here and would think: "who are these people to even direct their words to me?". Now imagine If I was a real King or Prince, in the past... 

See? Spiritism have this strange power of making we change our deepest manners. And be much better. But it's with you... no one can make you believe, if you don't want to. 

See you, man! You are cool.

MindWalk:

   Well, MW, I must disagree with you. You tell me that epistemology, logic, ethics, religious-philosophy, for example, are still treasures of philosophy. I totally disagree. There was once some value in philosophy but we as a human race have far supassed the armchair navel-gazing.

   If you want things like "what if" and "could it be possible", then I recommend you watch the Ancient Alien TV series. If you want hard facts, you turn to science. If you want ethics, then you get it from the cultural norms where you happen to live and you get it re-inforced by the thin-blue line known as the police.

   I could write five more paragraphs why I think you are wrong on this. But let me sum it up in one sentence. You've been living on Walden Pond too long.

   Thoreau, Emerson...I thoroughly enjoyed reading their works, too. That was back in the 1950ies.

   Thoreau:

Royale-Prince: "And I think pawnwhacker are trying to maybe put an end on the discussion (post number 3363). "

N. estou a brincar. Essa discussão nunca vai morrer. Muita gente louca. 

pawnwhacker, you don't think it's worthwhile to think about what principles could serve as the basis of ethics? You don't think Mill's essays Utilitarianism and On Liberty have value? You don't think Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance" makes sense? You don't think it's worthwhile to realize that all ethical claims rest on fundamental value judgments, or to think about what value judgments it makes sense to rest them on?

I certainly think hard about basic epistemology. What can be known? What is it to know that p? I am led to the conclusion that we all make fundamental epistemic and metaphysical assumptions (FEMA), which I assume I've mentioned before; that all of our knowledge claims are made subject to those presuppositions (I'd call them "fundamental epistemic and metaphysical presuppositions," but "FEMP" doesn't have the pleasing correspondence to a federal agency that "FEMA" has <smile>); that knowledge is reliably true belief, where reliability involves both the reliability of one's own thought processes and the reliability of one's own informational connection to the world (at least, for a posteriori knowledge claims).

You don't think symbolic logic is worthwhile? I think everyone should take a course in it.

   Nope. Philosophy is mostly useless, except it is a good way for colleges to collect tuition.

   And, you are putting words in my mouth when you tell me what I don't believe such as: "You don't think symbolic logic is worthwhile?"

Foi o que pensei... essa discussão nunca vai ter fim, meu amigo! Não tem jeito...

Sim. Mas é divertido. 

Eu sabia. haha! Vocês curtem uma boa discussão aqui! Mas às vezes é legal sim, eu confesso. Também discuto direto com o povo, como mencionei no comentário para o MindWalk.

   Now lookee here, MW...

   Have you not taken a course at college with a name such as "logic" or "straight thinking"? Well, I have. In such a class you learn how not to make or accept logical fallacies. How to use reason. And so on and so forth.

   For the well-rounded gentleman, we must have some knowledge of SPA (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and all the others up to Jean Paul Sarte. One ought to also have knowledge of Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, the French Revolution, Shakespeare, Little Red Riding Hood and so on and so forth.

   But let's not mistake this for anything other than what they are. I call these things "good to know". That's about it.

   Sarte:

    Aproveite, meu amigo.

   Baloney...and you really ought to get out more often. Fresh air clears the head. Stick that in your red inkwell. 

   (shhh...well now I've gone and done it! Conversation killer alert.)

If you have no interest in such questions, OK--but that doesn't make thinking about them worthless.

   Stop it. You are killing me. I said philosophy is dead. I didn't say it was worthless. Comprende?!

   Well, looks like I finally killed this thread. I take full responsibility. Absolutely nothing more of any significance can possibly be said after that...that carnal, vituperate statement that I just made.

   The only thing possibly worse would be if hapless were to spout one of his vapid truthyisms. But, he is the busy one.

   With that and my humblest apologies...

                                    The End

   Farewell...

No, I do not comprehend. What do you mean when you say that philosophy is dead, if not that it has been rendered worthless by science?