We already have an excess of lawyers and litigation in general.Trotskygrad wrote:
Where do lawyers fit into that pyramid?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is useless.Macbeth wrote:
Governments, legal systems, and other things usually have some sort of philosophy forming it's foundation.
It's like a pyramid of needs. You need a foundation of engineers and laborers to build a society.
You need far fewer philosophers than engineers in a society.
anyways, I disagree with where philosophers fit on that pyramid, there should be philosophers at every level.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6971
Right. Firstly I'm not in high school.Uzique wrote:
already stated, dumbass:Superior Mind wrote:
How do you know what I've read or not read? Are philosophical questions not allowed to be returned to, simply because they have already been written about? The clout that comes with the established philosophers we study at school is simply there because they sought to write down their ideas. Those ideas may have existed for thousands of years before them and will continue to exist and be reborn even if all books are burned away. Why is this article not sufficient enough to be interesting? All you've done is stated that all his ideas have been written on before and that you are versed in them. Why is it bellow you to read a colleague's interpretation of those ideas?Uzique wrote:
hahaha what a ridiculously stupid fucking statement
"that's the beauty of its discourse"
yeah now stop being clueless. hahahaha.
a well-reasoned, logical and structured philosophical argument is a thing of beauty and a real mind-opener
some guy just diluting already-stated philosophical theories and blagging his ass off on wordpress... is dull, trite and unoriginal.
elitist? yeah, okay. im sure if i linked to a blogspot with some fucking rudimentary engineering, all the engineering grads here would be "elitist" about the shitty/simply designed, bridge...? oh wait, no, all philosophy is meaningless, structureless and just flows. the "beauty of its discourse".
read a fucking book
no clear philosophical argument or thesis (not according to any structure or logical method)
no real originality of thought nor any valid reinterpretation or reevaluation of existing thoughts
no real fucking point other than to be inane and try to include as many stupid thoughts into one headfuck of a non-philosophy
read more, high-school isn't exactly the lyceum
Your critique is fair enough. I agree that it lacks established methods of rhetorical writing. The purpose of the article is not so much to argue any point. It seems more like a blog entry or response paper. With that said, the article serves (for me at least) to re-awaken thought on that particular subject.
rhetorical writing? not even that. there are certain standards that a 'philosophy' needs.
anything else is just superficial psycho-babble touching upon subjects in a rudimentary and dissatisfactory way
sorry im not all "ooh whooah i totally look at death differently now, because some guy regurgitated other philosophies in a shit manner with zero structure to his thought"
anything else is just superficial psycho-babble touching upon subjects in a rudimentary and dissatisfactory way
sorry im not all "ooh whooah i totally look at death differently now, because some guy regurgitated other philosophies in a shit manner with zero structure to his thought"
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6971
I don't think anyone in this thread was all "ooh whooah i totally look at death differently now, because some guy regurgitated other philosophies in a shit manner with zero structure to his thought"Uzique wrote:
rhetorical writing? not even that. there are certain standards that a 'philosophy' needs.
anything else is just superficial psycho-babble touching upon subjects in a rudimentary and dissatisfactory way
sorry im not all "ooh whooah i totally look at death differently now, because some guy regurgitated other philosophies in a shit manner with zero structure to his thought"
I think the point of the thread was not to critique the article, rather to discuss the philosophies of death, which I'm sure you are well able to discuss. It's obvious the article was nothing significant.
But where does the idea and the structure which that society is based on come from? It's laws, it's basic principles, pretty much the fundemental part of a society stems from philosophical views.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is useless.Macbeth wrote:
Governments, legal systems, and other things usually have some sort of philosophy forming it's foundation.Turquoise wrote:
Engineering is at least more useful.
It's like a pyramid of needs. You need a foundation of engineers and laborers to build a society.
You need far fewer philosophers than engineers in a society.
That there is less need of them doesn't mean that they aren't as important, philosophers have at times brought about heated debate and large changes in many societies. Philosophy itself stretches far beyond just that though.
Pity there's not really much of a future in philosophy else I'd be studying it.
Last edited by dayarath (2010-10-18 13:11:34)
inane little opines
I know what you're saying, but if we look at history, then it gives us an idea of how philosophers fit into society. More often than not, philosophers are people of privilege that influence the upper echelons of society and sometimes serve well as leaders. However, they would be completely ineffectual without able workers to support their ideas or to apply these ideas to the world around them.dayarath wrote:
But where does the idea and the structure which that society is based on come from? It's laws, it's basic principles, pretty much the fundemental part of a society stems from philosophical views.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is useless.Macbeth wrote:
Governments, legal systems, and other things usually have some sort of philosophy forming it's foundation.
It's like a pyramid of needs. You need a foundation of engineers and laborers to build a society.
You need far fewer philosophers than engineers in a society.
That there are less needed doesn't mean they're less important, philosophers have at times brought about pretty grand debate and change in many societies. Philosophy itself stretches far beyond just that though.
Pity there's not really much of a future in philosophy else I'd be studying it.
Advancing philosophy is far less pressing of a need than maintaining or improving infrastructure. In a way, you could say that engineers are the philosophers of the physical world. Instead of molding ideas, they mold physical reality.
I have to disagree here, philosophy in itself is just as important to advance as the engineering world is. You don't need to have a degree in philosophy per sé to be called a philosopher either, what is important is that you try and tackle moral, ethical or structural problems that a society faces. Pushing forward new ideas with solid argumentation on how a society should work, or should not and other important aspects can dramatically increase it's efficiency.Turquoise wrote:
I know what you're saying, but if we look at history, then it gives us an idea of how philosophers fit into society. More often than not, philosophers are people of privilege that influence the upper echelons of society and sometimes serve well as leaders. However, they would be completely ineffectual without able workers to support their ideas or to apply these ideas to the world around them.
Advancing philosophy is far less pressing of a need than maintaining or improving infrastructure. In a way, you could say that engineers are the philosophers of the physical world. Instead of molding ideas, they mold physical reality.
Philosophers and engineers aren't all that far apart though, you largely use the same parts of the brain :p.
Last edited by dayarath (2010-10-18 13:22:02)
inane little opines
If you include economics, sociology, and psychology among the topic of philosophy, then I agree.dayarath wrote:
I have to disagree here, philosophy in itself is just as important to advance as the engineering world is. You don't need to have a degree in philosophy per sé to be called a philosopher either, what is important is that you try and tackle moral, ethical or structural problems that a society faces. Pushing forward new ideas with solid argumentation on how a society should work, or should not and other important aspects can dramatically increase it's efficiency.Turquoise wrote:
I know what you're saying, but if we look at history, then it gives us an idea of how philosophers fit into society. More often than not, philosophers are people of privilege that influence the upper echelons of society and sometimes serve well as leaders. However, they would be completely ineffectual without able workers to support their ideas or to apply these ideas to the world around them.
Advancing philosophy is far less pressing of a need than maintaining or improving infrastructure. In a way, you could say that engineers are the philosophers of the physical world. Instead of molding ideas, they mold physical reality.
Philosophers and engineers aren't all that far apart though, you largely use the same parts of the brain :p.
All three of them can definately fit in the topics of philosophy, as they are all pretty vital to describing utopian or dystopian worlds.Turquoise wrote:
If you include economics, sociology, and psychology among the topic of philosophy, then I agree.
inane little opines
I guess I often think of philosophy in more metaphysical terms. The elements of philosophy that concern those three areas of thought are definitely important though.dayarath wrote:
All three of them can definately fit in the topics of philosophy, as they are all pretty vital to describing utopian or dystopian worlds.Turquoise wrote:
If you include economics, sociology, and psychology among the topic of philosophy, then I agree.
i don't know, let me think about that . . .
Alot of people believe that, hell when most think of a "philosopher" they usually describe a guy who's really vague with perhaps a big bushy beard. This isn't really true, philosophy can be very exact and concern itself with very real, physical problems - not just defining and trying to understand metaphysical concepts. Although that in itself is also a very large part of philosophy.Turquoise wrote:
I guess I often think of philosophy in more metaphysical terms. The elements of philosophy that concern those three areas of thought are definitely important though.dayarath wrote:
All three of them can definately fit in the topics of philosophy, as they are all pretty vital to describing utopian or dystopian worlds.Turquoise wrote:
If you include economics, sociology, and psychology among the topic of philosophy, then I agree.
And now I'm gun watch iron man 2 :B
Last edited by dayarath (2010-10-18 13:41:35)
inane little opines
Surely not.Surely death is the greatest threat that we all face.
ƒ³
Of course, new opinions aren't valid, it must be in an old dusty book to be of value.Uzique wrote:
read a fucking book
I don't even see any point in thinking about death, except insofar as it affects the way you lead your life up to it.
Fuck Israel
There aren't many new ideas and whatever idea most people think is new is more than likely older than they realize. I mean: I thought up some and believed some ideas that I later found out weren't at all unique or new. I'm sure we all have had that happen to us at one point.
The whole 'read a fucking book' thing is just a mean way of saying: read some basic philosophy books and get a better understanding of philosophy before you attempt to discount it. You might learn something or find some stuff interesting. A nice little book to start you off in the ethics area of philosophy would be: A Short History of Ethics.
The whole 'read a fucking book' thing is just a mean way of saying: read some basic philosophy books and get a better understanding of philosophy before you attempt to discount it. You might learn something or find some stuff interesting. A nice little book to start you off in the ethics area of philosophy would be: A Short History of Ethics.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-10-18 16:57:46)
My favorite philosopher is DezertEagle5.
I'm glad I didn't read this thread. Uzique has been extra sucky as of late.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I read the OP and instantly knew that I would find Uzique entrenched and fighting off the proletariat throughout this thread. Give it up, guys. You're all remedial unless you agree.
He called me a peasant earlier today It brought tears to my eyes.mikkel wrote:
I read the OP and instantly knew that I would find Uzique entrenched and fighting off the proletariat throughout this thread. Give it up, guys. You're all remedial unless you agree.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Just hit the link to the in the op and ignore the 'faux' prose. You got a take on our 'blip' in time?JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm glad I didn't read this thread.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Random blog sparks off-site debate on blog's format and ethereal validity. Details at eleven.