Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:49:15 -0000
From: "zeb haradon" <zebharadon@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it
>From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: <extropians@extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it
>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:02:13 -0800
JR>Well, in that case, I think we could replace the word "philosophy" with
JR>the term "rational thinking and theorizing." We don't need to hypothesize
JR>that a mysterious substance called "philosophy" somehow operates in
JR>metaphysical conjunction with system design and rational thought.
>
>A friend of mine works at a hotel. Some guest was upset about something and
>called down to the front desk to complain. She said "I'm sorry about that
>sir..", and he replied "I don't want to hear 'I'm sorry', I want an
>apology".
>I think you are confused about what philosophy is - go to a bookstore and
>find the philosophy section, and browse through some of the books. Spend
>some time doing it, and you'll find what is meant by "philosophy". You'll
>see that some of it is valid and some is not.
Been there, done that, written the encyclopedia of philosophy ... and I
don't
think *any* of it is valid ... the reason is that philosophy cannot compete
with
or evaluate natural (scientific) theories/ arguments.
I note that Dan has is not able/ willing to respond to my most recent
posting:
From: Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu>
Subject: Placebo effect not physical
S> OK. I also think that language is faulty and misleading in general,
S> which I why I am starting to develop a word-free visual philosophy
S> (some examples at www.extropia.net vis phil sector).
>Being visual is not enough.
S Nor is being wordy ..... but philosophy does not allow itself
S to use pictures, but in my approach I can use any symbolic forms.
The reason that no philosophers to date can cope with MVT is that
it undermines their whole, carefully constructed but artificial, linguistic
edifice. Philosophy (academic) feeds on itself, but cannot agree or
disagree with empirical claims. "Epiphenomenalism" (of the mental
on the physical, the usual materialist variant) is demolished by the
placebo effect example ... since clearly in these cases the mind effects
the body ... and therefore the ludicrous epiphenomenalist claim that
no mental (non-physical) events take place/ have any causal effects
is refuted.
MVT, the all-conquering (reductionist) philosophy will redefine this whole
field .... a shake-out that is long overdue.
www.steve-nichols.com
Stop the Singularity, bring on the Plurality!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT