Thomas Kuhn - The structure of scientific revolutions / This is what you reminded me of

A very interesting book, indeed. Already on my shelves. I agree.

As we "strive to know," willingly passing beyond the limits of "direct evidence," it is very important that we study the processes that we are using. Otherwise, we might wander into something akin to what other 'scientists' once thought: "the world is flat." And not even realize it.

(Remember: I am sincere in the word, 'scientists' even though I put the word in quotes. That was the conclusion that presumably-equally-intelligent human beings did reach, based on their observations of their time! There was nothing "that they could then see" to disprove it, so they applied "Occam's Razor.")

The only tangible evidence otherwise would probably have been at a solar or lunar eclipse. But it is unknown to what extent this phenomenon was understood. It might well have been in some places but not others, because in those days it was also pragmatically impossible for knowledge to be "widespread" as it is today. Furthermore, records were physically very fragile, and vast amounts of information about the past have now been forever lost.

My philosophy is simple and i do not know no fancy term for it.


People live and die. does it matter?

you are only forced to live and die everything else you do is extra.

I'll do more than that. There's pretty good article about it at Wikipedia.

I somewhat disagree. I think once we have a mind of our own we don't HAVE to be here...we GET to be here. Considering any alternatives, there is no greater gift. I wish only that I could live for ages to witness it all unfold but I have no difficulty in accepting it is temporary.

Yup.
A deer does not choose to be born to serve as food for the lions.

But, "philosophy" is not about the temporal nature of life. "Death always comes when you leas"

"Philosophy" is the fascinating study of what we think we "know," and how we think we "know" it. "Thinking about thinking."

And, for science, this is a very important consideration. When you are purposely stepping beyond the bounds of "hard experimental observations," which are very limited indeed, you can easily deceive yourself.

I think it's unwise to ignore the Spiritual, as most of you seem to be doing.

I remember going door to door (as we do), and I had with me a Magazine on Atheism. The householder said to me: "Of course there's a God - Look up! Who made the stars, and all of that?"

Agreeing with his logic opens a whole new dimension to philosophy; our purpose, reasons for our existence, questions about the present, etc.

Disagreeing with his logic renders the whole shooting match irrelevant & purposeless and points towards nihilism as the ultimate solution of all philosophy.

In my experience, "philosophy" tries to distance itself somewhat from "religion," except when it consciously chooses to include that into its focus. So, the key is to understand whether "your discussion" chooses to include that aspect, or to exclude it.

Some "very-religious folk" seem to like to engage in something else entirely: "dogma." Which is basically to shut down discussion or analysis in favor of "a foregone and dictated 'conclusion.'"

You simply need to be aware of "the rules of the game" as you enter into any discussion.

For instance, the entire term "creation science" is an oxymoron. The first term is going to entirely pre-empt the second, but the basis is "religious faith." Based entirely on someone's interpretation of a few thousand words in the first two chapters of the chosen translation of a very well-known religious book. It is quite pointless to enter into any argument within such a context if you don't accept the pre-eminence of that "first term." Choose your arguments carefully, and decide whether you should argue at all.

Importantly: "philosophy" is never about "who is correct." A premise of this entire exploration should be that "'correctness' cannot be known." (Indeed, if it could be, we would have no reason at all to "philosophize!")

My remarks had nothing to do with any translation of any book. Indeed I'm not arguing. But from earliest times, mankind has acknowledged unseen higher powers, which formed an essential plank in their philosophy. Their beliefs went with them wherever they travelled. Only recent generations have felt otherwise. I simply observed if you omit this, you are impoverishing your discussion.

The question of the purpose of life, why we are here, or hopes for the future are affected by your outlook on these matters. If one denies any higher power, we live purposeless, pointless existences with no hope for the future. The greatest achievers are levelled with the most insignificant by death. So what's the point, beyond self amusement?

I acknowledge that yes, many historic "philosophical" discussions did include religion – and, I am certainly not ruling it out. Everything happens in a certain "context of culture," and that includes religion. (Indeed, every human endeavor.) Simply understand what are the foundations that are presumed, and present your case accordingly. Again, not expecting to be "right" nor "wrong." The goal should be exploration.

Attempting to avoid getting too deeply into what spirituality is, personally it should be consistent with what we know of reality along with the knowledge that will in high likelihood be refined to say the least. One dividing border is fallacy which in my view has no place in spirituality or philosophy.

For example quoting what someone said to business_kid, "Of course there's a God - Look up! Who made the stars, and all of that?". This is literally a non sequitur. One does not follow the other even if all we consider is that not having any answer does not give license to just insert whatever one prefers. It is fallacious and bad practice if one has any desire to live in reality.

We know quite a lot about when and how stars are formed but have zero evidence any "who" is involved at all... just speculation and speculation with nothing to go on isn't philosophical nor spiritual. It's just Magick.

My casual interpretation of the term, "philosophy," is simply that is both (a) a formal exploration of "what we 'know,'" and (b) a technique used in Science when it is not possible to conduct experimentation.

Different contexts might exist: for example, within a religious context, a truly-philosophical discussion might occur about how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin. (Here, the basis of your "knowledge" consists of a body of accepted religious foundation texts, in their currently-accepted forms.) If this is the agreed-upon version of a starting foundation and direction, it will do. "Heads of a pin" is not unacceptable.

We can, if we choose, philosophize about what "scientific evidence" is telling us about "how stars are formed," without involving – purposely excluding – religion. Or, in a different context we could equally well philosophize about what various prophets "told" us about "eternal truth." (Here, the discussion might be: "which prophet," or the context in which "the prophet" spoke.) As long as we all understand where we are coming from, really anything goes. It's all okay.

We are, if you will, "exploring a solution space." A space which is perhaps "unknowable." (Or: "known with religious conviction.") We are really exploring: "how we think we know."

Sundialsvcs it seems you remain congenial and affable and that's largely a good thing but if we assert it is rational to try to explore the truly unknowable, and examples of that would include events before the Big Bang assuming that even has any meaning since we are considering things if indeed anything does exist outside of our Universe of SpaceTime as well as parts of our Universe forever beyond our ability to even detect due to the expansion exceeding a speed at which any information at all could ever reach us, that is simply Fantasy. At the very least it is fantasy now and only worth considering philosophically if and when that somehow changes that we can't imagine in 2024. There is a difference between Imagination and Philosophy, is there not?

To speculate on such things I contend is not only useless but utterly fanciful. You would be crazy to bet me if I predicted in the year 20050 our descendants, in fact a man named Joe, will invent a way to exceed the speed of light. Now that could obviously be a tenet of some Science Fiction novel and absent Joe and the exact year it or some approximation has already occurred but it is Fiction, not Philosophy in any form.

@sundialsvcs: I have no wish to contribute to the exploration. I think my views are known. I simply pointed out a facet that wasn't being considered.

@ enorbet: I fail to see the non sequitur

1. In looking up and perceiving order and design which has resisted entropy to date, implying design.
2. Concluding that Design requires a designer.

It is the reaction of a Spiritual person, shared by countless generations before us. Can you point me at any little tribe anywhere that were without their God?