slug.com slug.com

2 1

Just out of curiosity does anyone read my posts in No Nonsense Philosophy?

As best I can tell this forum uses the same trending algorithm as most social media. My concern is that if I want to refer back to something the group will have been deleted due to inactivity.

wolfhnd 8 Mar 9
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Is it possible to mirror this thread to the philosophy group?

1

I do. I try to thumbs up anything I read or respond to. However, I don't belong to the group...maybe I should...except it is not an area I spend a lot of time debating...

Thanks, the funny thing is I have a dim view of philosophy. On the other hand philosophers cause a lot of devastation, think Marx (and no he is not an economist by any stretch of the imagination).

It ain't a debate!

It's a several thousand year long ongoing conversation about better living through better being and being better.

Be there, or be square....

@govols Sure it is....competing visions and philosophies seeking dominance or supremacy. Or greater followings....maybe not by the founders of such, but by their adherents...

@tracycoyle

I have ever said competition was important 🙂

The problem is that the intellectual game is hard to set rules for. It also doesn't have objectives as such. At it's best it is just exploration. A lot of the explores unfortunate like to explore their own anus.

@wolfhnd

In the 17th century, science was referred to as "natural philosophy".
Then physics was invented and natural philosophy became physics. Everyone with sense abandoned philosophy and embraced physics, and physics advanced epically.

Many still clung to philosophy, but the work of philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries is unimpressive.

If Socrates were reincarnated today, he would ditch philosophy and embrace physics.

@wolfhnd
Yes, competition is critical. Without objective competition, a field decays. The rules need to be specific, and the game needs to be meaningful.

Physics and mathematics have legit competitions.

@jaymaron

Can we have this discussion in another thread. As Steven Weinberg says the use of philosophers is to counter the bad ideas of other philosophers.

I have never meet a scientist who didn't think they were a philosopher, it gets a bit complicated.

@wolfhnd
The magic of Socrates is that he didn't ever advance a position. He didn't need to. Socrates style was to destroy the positions of others. Socrates was feared. No one ever survived a duel with Socrates. Socrates could destroy anything.

When Socrates was young, a Greek asked the Oracle of Delphi "who is the smartest Greek", and the Oracle said Socrates.

Cantor and Russell were great destroyers. The value of their contributions was that they destroyed the entire field of logic and made it realize it had to start over.

The lesson of Cantor,, Russell, and Godel is that every position can be destroyed. Democrats are arrogant and feel that all of their positions are sacred.

I would love to turn Socrates loose today. Unleash the Socrates!

Mario Andretti: If things feel under control, you're not going fast enough.

If a scientific field isn't revolutionizing its paradigm at least once a decade, it's not discovering fast enough.

Badass scientists embrace revolution. Dumbass scientists cling to paradigms.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:196294
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.