[sebbysteiny]

I think Philosophy is the worst form of accademic subject. It's not really about finding truth but obscuring it.

All it does is try to undermine completely obvious stuff by attempting to find and challenge base assumptions that should not be challenged.

Like, for example, why should one need to 'think therefore I am' to prove that the thinker exists in an attempt to challenge or overcome the pretty obvious assumption that we are not being tricked by a devil into thinking we exist when we don't?

By reducing all knowledge to unanswerable questions in that way, philosophy undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it and it's only practical application is to obscure reason.

Philosophy truely sucks.

[pgrmdave]

So, let me ask the obvious - is that your philosophy?

[cwes99_03]

I think you are talking about a very narrow part of philosophy. There are philosophies of child rearing, philosophies of education, philosophies of marriage, philosophies of goverment rule, etc. etc. etc.

PGRMDave, hit it on the head. This is your philosophy on the philosophy of thought.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

So, let me ask the obvious - is that your philosophy?

This is typical of everything that is wrong with philosophy. In all other subjects, people answer questions with answers. In Philosophy, people answer questions with questions.

There are philosophies of child rearing, philosophies of education, philosophies of marriage, philosophies of goverment rule, etc. etc. etc.

What pray is the difference between 'philosophies of child rearing' and, say, 'the psychology of child rearing'? I cannot see how the methodoligy of bringing up a child requires being dealt with at a philosophical level. What is a child? What is a child's rear? All completely meaningless and unhelpful questions.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

This is typical of everything that is wrong with philosophy. In all other subjects, people answer questions with answers. In Philosophy, people answer questions with questions.....

So, I gather you are refering to "classical philosophy", like Socrates, Spinoza, Kant, Russell, et al.

Did you ever see the print by M.C. Escher showing a "drawing" containing two hands, each holding a pen? Each hand transitions from being a 2-D image to a 3-D image holding a real pen, which is being used to "draw" the other hand.
http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/back-bmp/LW355.jpg

Fascinating, yes? Disturbing? Provoking? Is it "real" or illusory? Is it paradoxical, or is there some way to view the image so that paradox doesn't arise? Why am I asking all these questions?

That is what classical philosophy is like. It teaches by asking questions that provoke us into considering the possible answers--or into asking further questions. By and by, it leads us to this startling conclusion:

Philosophy is not about "things" but about "words". Actually, it is about languaging and how we humans use languaging to model our world, our selves, our existence, our purpose, and even our languaging. To come to grips with the universe, we must confront the fact that our minds are a part of that universe; that our minds use languaging to model the universe; that to understand our models, we must first understand our languaging; and that our languaging limits and constrains what we can observe about our universe.

So we come full circle: the one hand draws the other.

For this reason, philosophy is neither easy nor concise. It is in fact complex, self-referential, paradoxical and self-questioning. It is like trying to climb a mountain made of quicksand.

But the view from the top of that mountain...

Oh! My! God! The view!

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Philosophy is not about "things" but about "words". Actually, it is about languaging and how we humans use languaging to model our world, our selves, our existence, our purpose, and even our languaging. To come to grips with the universe, we must confront the fact that our minds are a part of that universe; that our minds use languaging to model the universe; that to understand our models, we must first understand our languaging; and that our languaging limits and constrains what we can observe about our universe.

How does this help, say, a single mother struggling to bring up her kids?

Great post structure by the way. I loved the little story and the picture followed by the leap into a kind of analogy. Didn't understand it and that which I did understand I didn't agree with, but it was an excellently made post. So good that I think it is worthy of a QP in its own right.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

For this reason, philosophy is neither easy nor concise. It is in fact complex, self-referential, paradoxical and self-questioning.

Just a pedantic point. You forgot a couple of adjectives in your sentence. I think what you really meant was

Originally Posted by Improved version

For this reason, philosophy is neither easy nor concise. It is in fact complex, self-referential, paradoxical, self-questioning, completely useless, fundamentally unhelpful, drivel.

Gramatical errors can happen to the best of us .

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

It is like trying to climb a mountain made of quicksand.

But the view from the top of that mountain...

Oh! My! God! The view!

It's funny you say that, because I kinda thought it was more like intellectual mastibation complete with the Oh! My! God! The view!

[InfiniteNow]

I like honey, but you don't. To say that honey is useless would be, not only a stretch, but wrong.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

What pray is the difference between 'philosophies of child rearing' and, say, 'the psychology of child rearing'?

A person's philosophy of child rearing is their belief of how child rearing should be done. The psychology of child rearing is the study of child rearing with regards to the psychology of the child.

Philosophy is a study of thougt.
Psychology is a body of knowlege/study.

The most valuable class I had, and think anyone can have is 'Logic 101'. Basic structures of logical arguments. What makes for bad/illogical arguments?

Philosophy is a fascinating subject. How do we know what we know? Why act the way we do? Humankind has been asking these questions for millenium. I think the pursuit of this line of thought is noble. But it isn't for everyone

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

How does this help, say, a single mother struggling to bring up her kids?

It doesn't. Nor should it. The purpose of philosophy is to understand the nature of intellect, not to know things.

Great post structure by the way. I loved the little story and the picture followed by the leap into a kind of analogy. Didn't understand it and that which I did understand I didn't agree with, but it was an excellently made post. So good that I think it is worthy of a QP in its own right.

Thank you kindly.

Just a pedantic point. You forgot a couple of adjectives in your sentence...

Your attempt to improve upon my pedantry is appreciated.

...It's funny you say that, because I kinda thought it was more like intellectual mastibation complete with the Oh! My! God! The view!

"Mastibation" is the process of chewing food with false teeth that do not belong to you. I think the word you are looking for is "mastication".

[arkain101]

If we didnt philosophise, err is that a word?

We might still think the earth was flat, but we questioned and came up with a philosophy of the shape of the earth.