daikarasu t1_itvaycw wrote
Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
My guy what? We're talking about philosophy not science. It's all literally just speculating. You think Plato put people in a cave?
BryKKan t1_itvoye9 wrote
Science is a philosophy in this sense, and the discussion is about supplanting it as the single source of valid knowledge.
The thing is, it works. It makes sense. And it doesn't require speculation. Unlike the rest of this hogwash.
platoprime t1_itvg8ej wrote
You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?
>It's all literally just speculating.
Philosophy might be all about speculating when you confine yourself to arguing with the natural sciences about metaphysics. For some of us at least philosophy is more than just unverifiable speculation and is something that should be lived and applied. Or at least the useful parts can be applied.
daikarasu t1_itvkuis wrote
>You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?
Yes, they're literally called Allegories.
>should be lived and applied
I think you misunderstand what it means to speculate an idea. A speculation is forming a theory. You cannot prove or falsify a theory with anecdotal experience because people see the world in such different ways.
It's fine to live it out, but I think you've really misunderstood the point of philosophical discussion if you think that there's no value in discussing ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective. Which is really ironic cause much of what Plato does is discuss ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.
platoprime t1_itvljsx wrote
>It's fine to live it out, but I think you've really misunderstood the point of philosophical discussion if you think that there's no value in discussing ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.
I never said that. In my first comment I acknowledged that becoming a better thinker is through philosophical speculation is value speculation provides.
>Which is really ironic cause much of what Plato does is discuss ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.
Hypothetical discussions and speculative discussions aren't the same thing. Allegories are perfectly capable of conveying verifiable truths.
>I think you misunderstand what it means to speculate an idea.
You're fixating on the word speculate unnecessarily. My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy.
daikarasu t1_itvno6x wrote
>My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy
I'll repeat myself. Anecdotes do not falsify or verify anything. Philosophy is purely anecdotal.
Philosophy is about how you experience things. Your experience can never be an absolute fact, therefore you can never verify anything, nor can you find it false. One person's heaven is another person's hell.
There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.
platoprime t1_itvo4x8 wrote
Just because subjective truths can appear to contradict each other doesn't mean those truths aren't true. The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.
I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.
>There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.
People use axioms all the time in philosophy.
daikarasu t1_itvu7l1 wrote
>Subjective truth
You mean a belief? Because nobody is saying you can't have your beliefs.
>The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.
This is a false equivalency, you can measure the universe and how frames of reference change. You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.
>I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.
Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.
Look, let's use an example. If you take 2 identical space ships and send them through an identical journey across the stars, they will end up in identical places. If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.
That's why I don't think it makes any sense to treat the two in the same way. You can't say that the universe is subjective in the same way as humans because it behaves predictably while humans do not.
platoprime t1_itvuhda wrote
No I don't mean a belief.
>Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.
You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference.
>If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.
What makes you think that?
Edit:
>You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.
That's silly. You just ask.
daikarasu t1_itvvi21 wrote
>You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference
Measurement is the key word here. The issue isn't that they are different, the issue is that they are measurable. You can demonstrate in absolute mathematics what is happening and why it looks different from different perspectives.
I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?
>What makes you think that?
Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.
platoprime t1_itvvtv9 wrote
>I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?
You ask. It isn't that complicated.
>Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.
That's absurd. Twins only have very similar environments not identical ones.
daikarasu t1_itvwbav wrote
>You ask. It isn't complicated.
Ok great explanation thanks.
Look, this has been fun, but it's pretty clear neither of us is going to budge an inch. We each hold our beliefs quite strongly. This has been an interesting conversation though, and I hope you have a nice day.
platoprime t1_itvwi41 wrote
>Ok great explanation thanks.
A truth being hard to check and there not being a truth are not the same thing.
daikarasu t1_itvwrlp wrote
Byeeeee have a nice day
livebonk t1_itvwcko wrote
You think Einstein actually rode in an elevator to determine if he could tell the difference between that and gravity?
daikarasu t1_itvx25r wrote
Ah man, you got me. It's a shame Einstein doesn't have a ton of mathematics and data to back up his ideas.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments