Are modern day philosophers being properly utilized?

Writer
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:53 am

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 7:11 am » by Graystone


If philosophy is "the pursuit of wisdom" it would seem logical for philosophers to organize into local, national and international think tanks to provide insights and possible solutions for the issues impacting each of those jurisdictions. Collectively they could create and refine a best practices approach to the solutions and share them with their respective colleagues.

Is there an organiation like that out there already?

If not, lets start one!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:38 am
Location: My happy place

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 7:19 am » by Newearthman


They would threaten the powers that be and their evil agendas. Our society is not set up for our benefit or else we would have these kind of think tank groups that could easily solve all our problems. We are all missled!
Last edited by Newearthman on Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 7:21 am » by Lowsix


I disagree 100% with Newearthman here.
They would in fact, end up justifying and making the case for the PTB.

The problem is that philosophy is not a science, (although that in itself is not a problem) it is an art, and that art depends primarily on being able to "move the goalposts" of premises wherever it wants, in order to explore ideas.

While that in itself is not a bad thing, it leads to a type of relativism which depends entirely on premises that MUST be agreed on in advance. And since those premises can be moved, almost any position on ANYTHING can successfully argued for or against.

That is fine for an academic exercise, but not for a practical implications exercise.

For instance, A good philosopher could make a stone solid case for the NWO. For Eugenics, For Euthanasia, for depopulation, for removal of liberties...etc....all they have to do is remove the single premise of "individual rights" and Boom, you have what would appear to be an unbreakable case FOR any of those rather abhorrent ideas. And since we ARE talking about the "problems of the Planet", i assure you, individual rights would be the first thing to get tossed out the window...becuase they in reality do not envelop or consider the "greater Good". You dont want to read a paper like that. It might just turn you into your own ideological nightmare.

Philosophers have no business sniffing around these human conditional discussions, because of the ease in which 'individual rights' can be made to appear as if they go against the "Greater Good".

And..in fact.....they do.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:17 pm

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 7:52 am » by Mep630


LowSix wrote:I disagree 100% with Newearthman here.
They would in fact, end up justifying and making the case for the PTB.

The problem is that philosophy is not a science, (although that in itself is not a problem) it is an art, and that art depends primarily on being able to "move the goalposts" of premises wherever it wants, in order to explore ideas.

While that in itself is not a bad thing, it leads to a type of relativism which depends entirely on premises that MUST be agreed on in advance. And since those premises can be moved, almost any position on ANYTHING can successfully argued for or against.

That is fine for an academic exercise, but not for a practical implications exercise.

For instance, A good philosopher could make a stone solid case for the NWO. For Eugenics, For Euthanasia, for depopulation, for removal of liberties...etc....all they have to do is remove the single premise of "individual rights" and Boom, you have what would appear to be an unbreakable case FOR any of those rather abhorrent ideas. And since we ARE talking about the "problems of the Planet", i assure you, individual rights would be the first thing to get tossed out the window...becuase they in reality do not envelop or consider the "greater Good". You dont want to read a paper like that. It might just turn you into your own ideological nightmare.

Philosophers have no business sniffing around these human conditional discussions, because of the ease in which 'individual rights' can be made to appear as if they go against the "Greater Good".

And..in fact.....they do.
:headscratch: :think:

Dude you are full of garbage.

LowSix new Avatar =)
Image

I mean do you really believe some of the trash you write? I mean is it is something where you feel like your "right" about something in life, and you get this small adrenaline rush, no matter how far off you might be? I am trying to understand you and I just can't put it together. I mean what is your deal? What drives you every day to feel the need to post like your the only authority on anything? What do you do for a living? What do you believe in right now? You really think everything is just dandy with the world and there are no problems? I mean I have been posting a while now around you and I just don't understand how you think and why you communicate like you do. I would like some insight into this, if your not to afraid to share some of your personal feelings on the forum.

If you help the Oppressors, eventually you and your family will be oppressed.

www.mind-wars.com

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 8:08 am » by Lowsix


If i thought you could even comprehend my answer,
I'd articulate a really good one for you.

So heres the cliffnotes version..

Philosophers arent made for solving problems, they are for playing word games.

Nowhere in what i wrote, would you find MY feelings on anything, PARTICULARLY the Nwo...other than my feelings about philosophers. I know you think you saw something incriminating in there, but trust me, that was just a reflection of your ignorance flashing at you out of the corner of your eye.

But as i wrote that, i had this nagging feeling, that somewhere, there would be some dumb motherfucker, bouncing around on his vinyl office chair, thinking he had me pegged since i said the word..NWO. And whaddya know? Here you are.

NOWHERE in what i wrote did i actually address my feelings toward any organization, real or imagined. Nor did i say anything was "peachy".

I simply described the role of philosophers. You probably think you know what they do or how they approach problems..but you dont..or else you wouldn't have wasted your time humping me.

You are a puppy Mep..and you are NOWHERE near as smart as you think you are. Not even close. And i mean that in the ugliest way possible.

Ive described what i was doing three times,
and id bet my whole salary, you still dont get it.

I don't care.
Now fuck off.

If you are still struggling, i made it easy and bolded the stuff that will be on the quiz.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 10:29 pm » by Lowsix


The sound of crickets...not surprising.

Hit, run, then run away, Mep..
its what we expect out of you.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:11 pm

PostWed Feb 03, 2010 10:39 pm » by Cornbread714


Ha ha, keep up the good work, guys!

Mep, Six, you both rock!!

And in answer to the OP....

Look and ye shall behold!

Ha ha ha ha

DTV still lives!!
Where's the beer and when do I get paid?
- Jimmy Carl Black (the Indian of the group)

Writer
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:53 am

PostSun Feb 07, 2010 4:02 am » by Graystone


LowSix wrote:I disagree 100% with Newearthman here.
They would in fact, end up justifying and making the case for the PTB.

The problem is that philosophy is not a science, (although that in itself is not a problem) it is an art, and that art depends primarily on being able to "move the goalposts" of premises wherever it wants, in order to explore ideas.

While that in itself is not a bad thing, it leads to a type of relativism which depends entirely on premises that MUST be agreed on in advance. And since those premises can be moved, almost any position on ANYTHING can successfully argued for or against.

That is fine for an academic exercise, but not for a practical implications exercise.

For instance, A good philosopher could make a stone solid case for the NWO. For Eugenics, For Euthanasia, for depopulation, for removal of liberties...etc....all they have to do is remove the single premise of "individual rights" and Boom, you have what would appear to be an unbreakable case FOR any of those rather abhorrent ideas. And since we ARE talking about the "problems of the Planet", i assure you, individual rights would be the first thing to get tossed out the window...becuase they in reality do not envelop or consider the "greater Good". You dont want to read a paper like that. It might just turn you into your own ideological nightmare.

Philosophers have no business sniffing around these human conditional discussions, because of the ease in which 'individual rights' can be made to appear as if they go against the "Greater Good".

And..in fact.....they do.


I am afraid I will have to plead absolute ignorance on this then as I was taking a literal definition of philosphers incorrectly. Perhaps it is some sort of scientist, perhaps like the ones eluded to by Buckminster Fuller, that would be better suited to this task.

http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_ ... gn_science

Does that make more sense?

Writer
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:53 am

PostSun Feb 07, 2010 4:03 am » by Graystone


newearthman wrote:They would threaten the powers that be and their evil agendas. Our society is not set up for our benefit or else we would have these kind of think tank groups that could easily solve all our problems. We are all missled!


Could they take that into account in their process?

G

Initiate
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:08 am

PostTue Sep 02, 2014 12:33 pm » by godnodog


Once I had a bad score on a philosophy exam on existence, life and death, I asked "why?", was told I was wrong because we were taught what famous philosophers wrote/defended, so I replied that the question was about my opinion, not about theirs, "oh you're still wrong" I was told, so I replied "prove me wrong", so I got a lesson in philosophy, so I replied "yes very nice talk, yet you and them proved nothing, as you cannot back it up, and you can't disprove what I said, and just because they thinked a lot about it, it still doesn't make them right and I wrong, a lot of intelligent people thought the world was flat, until it was proven by mathematics that it was not", and with this I killed the discussion and got a grade that allowed me to pass the class.
Scientific method killed philosophy, according to de Grass Tyson, and I agree.



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook