The Greatest Thinker Of The Millennium

[Florestan]

         It sounds like you're saying that I think I'm right, and therefore want others to adopt my view. To some extent this is true.

Fine. It is exactly in that extent that you're "dogmatic".

However, I have limited expectations about that possibility. My powers of explanation are not what I'd like them to be, and I'm not interested in facile agreement. So there's not much chance that I will suddenly persuade a bunch of people to adopt what must look like a rather strange point of view.

Do you ever entertain the slightest possibility that you might be wrong?

[drogulus]

Then limit yourself to scientists and leave philosophers alone. What you do is asking the apple-tree to grow oranges.

 

    No, this argument is philosophy, not science. That's the point I made with nut-job. He thinks science is unconnected to philosophy and I'm saying no.

    How could I leave philosophy alone? The idea is preposterous. Once in, never out. 

Do you ever entertain the slightest possibility that you might be wrong?

     I'm not much for entertaining. And we hardly ever go out.

    I was wrong once. I thought I was wrong, but......

     Are you really at the point of trying to convince me that I'm wrong to try and argue for my views because I think I'm right? So, how do you argue for yours, by thinking you're wrong? Hey, I could've told you that!

   I have to leave it here. Duty calls, you know. 

[Florestan]

        How could I leave philosophy alone? The idea is preposterous. Once in, never out. 

Sounds like for you philosophy is a gaol where you serve your life-time sentence. And judging by the sort of philosophy you advocate, I'm inclined to think you're right. 

 

I'm not much for entertaining. And we hardly ever go out.

    I was wrong once. I thought I was wrong, but......

     Are you really at the point of trying to convince me that I'm wrong to try and argue for my views because I think I'm right? So, how do you argue for yours, by thinking you're wrong? Hey, I could've told you that!

All this admittedly funny stuff is no answer. Can you answer a simple "yes" or "no" to this simple question: Has it ever crossed your mind that your worldview might be wrong?

   I have to leave it here. Duty calls, you know. 

By all means, do take your time.

[Florestan]

    No, this argument is philosophy, not science. That's the point I made with nut-job. He thinks science is unconnected to philosophy and I'm saying no.

Sometimes it seems to me that science is connected to philosophy exactly as the car mechanics are connected to the engineers who designed the car. They --- the mechanics, I mean, and only if they are real professionals --- know all car's parts and how they works, they are able to discover or predict malfunctions, they can even drive the car. But they are incapable of designing it and in many cases even incapable of understanding the principles underlying the car's modus operandi. 

[Haffner]

    It matters if you want to get metaphysical.

Or megaphysical.

[Haffner]

I've just stated that I disagree with Hegel but it seems you missed that one.

Alot of fascinating philosophies grew out of disagreements with Hegel's system. Hegel himself made it clear that his system was meant to be absorbed, contradicted, and then discarded for whatever grew out of it.

[nut-job]

Sometimes it seems to me that science is connected to philosophy exactly as the car mechanics are connected to the engineers who designed the car. They --- the mechanics, I mean, and only if they are real professionals --- know all car's parts and how they works, they are able to discover or predict malfunctions, they can even drive the car. But they are incapable of designing it and in many cases even incapable of understanding the principles underlying the car's modus operandi. 

Or maybe philosophers are like aboriginal witch doctors who think that rains come because they do a dance or sacrifice an animal to the rain gods, and scientists are like the meteorologists who read the weather charts and tell them how much seed to plant in the spring.   

[Florestan]

Or maybe philosophers are like aboriginal witch doctors who think that rains come because they do a dance or sacrifice an animal to the rain gods, and scientists are like the meteorologists who read the weather charts and tell them how much seed to plant in the spring.   

This reminds me of a meteorologist who, accused of making wrong weather forecasts, retorted: I am never wrong about the weather, but I admit I might sometimes be wrong about the time. 

[DavidRoss]

That some here continue to express their bigoted and foolishly erroneous beliefs about the nature of Philosophy--in spite of patient correction--just illustrates the limited value of uninformed judgments made without the benefit of the open-minded, assumption-challenging, rigorous rationality rooted in empirical observation that is the essence of philosophical inquiry.

That the one cross-cultural human endeavor that has done the most to clear away ignorance, foolish prejudice, and superstition, whose methods and goals have given the world more beneficial fruit than any other, should itself be ridiculed as superstitious nonsense...is just a tad ironic, don't you think?

[nut-job]

That some here continue to express their bigoted and foolishly erroneous beliefs about the nature of Philosophy--in spite of patient correction--just illustrates the limited value of uninformed judgments made without the benefit of the open-minded, assumption-challenging, rigorous rationality rooted in empirical observation that is the essence of philosophical inquiry.

That the one cross-cultural human endeavor that has done the most to clear away ignorance, foolish prejudice, and superstition, whose methods and goals have given the world more beneficial fruit than any other, should itself be ridiculed as superstitious nonsense...is just a tad ironic, don't you think?

Apparently  doesn't mean the same thing in your culture as it does in mine.