From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!cash Wed Feb  5 11:56:44 EST 1992
Article 3451 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3451 sci.philosophy.tech:2029
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!cash
>From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb04.060419.21963@convex.com>
Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: muse.convex.com
Organization: The Instrumentality
References: <1992Feb03.053748.28400@convex.com> <1992Feb04.011418.5433@norton.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1992 06:04:19 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 74

In article <1992Feb04.011418.5433@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:

>So what you are saying is that you see philosophy as a game rather than as
>a serious study of an important subject.  Why should I take you seriously
>in your writings then if you admit that you are not serious about them
>yourself?

I don't think we're going to get very far with this. You think that if an
endeavor isn't practical, then it's trivial. Therefore, if I say philosophy
isn't practical, then you think I'm saying it's trivial. We're very
different persons, you and I: I think practical things are trivial. 

>>So can we conclude from this that you do not believe that philosophy has any
>>practical implications or applications?  What utter nonsense.  
 
>> "Utter nonsense?" I suppose that you can say that philosophy is anything
>> you like--but don't you think you should take into account the opinions of
>> those who have studied the field? 

>Since I don't consider matters of fact to be properly decided by vote, no.

This may surprise you, but some matters of fact _are_ decided by a vote.
For example, the practitioners of a discipline decide what constitutes that
discipline. I do not think you will find that the majority of philosophers
alive today will say that theirs is an empirical discipline, in the sense
that philosophical problems can be decided by empirical means. 

What will they say about the "practical implications" of philosophy? If by
"practical" you mean, "has material benefits", then the answer will be a
resounding "no". (Philosophers are notoriously underpaid). But perhaps you
mean something else by "practical"; perhaps you could clarify this.

>>Philosophy is the study of the broadest abstrations important to life.
>>That includes questions like "What is the universe really like?  Does it
>>exist?"  and "What is knowledge?  How can I know things are true?  What
>>is truth anyway?"  and "What is life all about?  Why I am I here?" and
>>"What should I do with my knowledge?  Is it all just a waste of time?
>>Should I care about anything?".  If you wish to defend your position that
>>"Philosophy is just entertaining word play." you need to be able to
>>explain why you think your definition is valid.  Appeals to authority are
>>not good enough.

Do you seriously propose that a question like, "does the universe really
exist" can be decided by an _experiment_? This one I'd like to see. And
after you do that one, please resolve "Should I care about anything" in a
similar fashion.

And when you've done your laboratory work, what practical difference does
it make? For example, if you don't "care about anything" will you start
caring if an experiment convinces you that you should? (Or vice versa?) I'm
skeptical. 

>>My point was that the ANSWERS that come out of philosophical discussions
>>need to have some kind of value.  If you are looking for the other kind,
>>why not just do crossword puzzles?

What is "value"? What do you value? 

>Philosophy is not an _empirical_ endeavor: any question that can be decided
> by an experiment is not a philosophical question, and is in the realm of
> science.

>>You really think so? Where do you get your original starting data from
>>which to reason if not from "empirical" observation?  Are we being a bit
>>rationalistic here?  It sounds like you have a nasty case of
>>analytic/synthetic dichotomitis.

I don't think you're addressing anything I said; I made no assertions about
where we "get data". 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


