the use of abstract discussions

[Black Core]

I was inspired by a quote from Scourge of God for this thread. He boldly stated that there is no reason to talk about things we won't know for sure (see the thread about good and evil). I strongly disagree with this.

There is always use to discussing something. It improves your skill to motivate and phrase valid arguments. Everything is based on opinion but it's the way we express what we think that makes us mature or not. A child for instance isn't mature yet because he can't properly phrase what he thinks about a subject. He starts shouting among other things to try to get his right that way. But the more he learns the more he will understand that he must try to come up with valid points to structure his opinion.

Philosophy is a way to evolve the mind into something greater. I've noticed that some people who do not discuss to be naïve and quite frankly really dumb. They go on and insulting the person who is trying to have a reasonable and mature discussion because he has never learned to make proper arguments.

So I just wanted to know what you think what the use is about subjects that we cannot know anything about (good and evil, infinity of the universe, etc.).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well, I didn't take Scourge's comments too seriously due to the way he presented them, but I suppose it's always good to have a sense of why one bothers to debate things that can't be proven one way or another.

I could cite various reasons for debating over unknowable things. One is the obvious value of having your views challenged, and having to come up with good arguments to defend them. I think a metal forum is particularly useful for this, due to the outrageously high proportion of self-righteous assholes present. Also, a metal community seems to draw together a highly eclectic group of people who share a wide range of beliefs and opinions. (Didn't you yourself claim to be a Satanist, Core?)

Another reason is that it's educational. Often in an informal setting such as this, people's knowledge about the topics at hand is quite incomplete. Those who are more familiar with the topic can enlighten others about historical arguments, relevant books and essays, and various other nuances in the common lines of argument.

I think the real reason I bother to debate such things, though, is because it's fun. To me, philosophy is nearly as much an art as it is a truth-finding endeavor. Philosophers often come up with some truly elaborate ways of explaining unknowable phenomena, and even if most of them have holes in their logic, or are just too bizarre and convoluted to take seriously, it's still highly entertaining to imagine the world that way. I know when I first learned about Leibniz's Monadology, for example, it was quite a mind-bending experience.

In addition to this, there's a lot of beauty to be found in simply imagining what the universe is really like behind all of its mystery. If you don't worry so much over whether there's actually an answer to a particular fundamental question, you'll often find that your train of thought in speculating on the answer can be pretty fascinating.

I think philosophy has more of an aesthetic quality to it than most people recognize. People are often strongly attracted to a certain worldview which would never come into play in any practical situation. A lot of debates over which of two beliefs is more correct often boil down to the participants admitting to each other that they simply find their own belief more attractive than that of their opponents.

It's not that much different, really, from the music-related discussions we have on this forum. People who dislike a band will attack it based on various shortcomings - too pop-oriented, too abrasive, too slow, etc. - and a lot of the time the person who enjoys the band does so for the very reasons the detractor cites. Philosophy often works in a similar way.

...So, if that's not enough reason to debate over obscure, abstract questions, then I don't know what is!

 

[Scourge of God]

Good of you to miss my entire point, which was never about the knowable, but about the useful. I questioned whether engaging in ego boosting debates over issues that get us no closer to solutions serves a productive purpose, and you haven't gotten any closer to answering that question.

Try again.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I questioned whether engaging in ego boosting debates over issues that get us no closer to solutions serves a productive purpose, and I don't really care what justification you could offer, since I'm probably not going to read your posts very carefully anyway.

Fixed.

I offered plenty of reasons to engage in 'unuseful' debates above. If you're so interested in debating something practical, go join a scientific research forum.

edit: Or try making your own thread for once, instead of complaining about other people's threads.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't think it's quite so easy to make a clean demarcation between useful and useless debates. Well, some debates are just clearly useless in a "how is this going to improve the human condition?" sense. But methinks it's a bit unclear how to categorize quite a few philo debates in this sense. I think I am rambling. Bye.

 

[Scourge of God]

Philosophy can and should have a connection applicable to the world, and if you weren't so busy trying to use this forum to increase your sense of self-worth, you'd take the criticism constructively instead of being a cock about it.

 

[Scourge of God]

I don't think it's quite so easy to make a clean demarcation between useful and useless debates. Well, some debates are just clearly useless in a "how is this going to improve the human condition?" sense. But methinks it's a bit unclear how to categorize quite a few philo debates in this sense. I think I am rambling. Bye.

Cause and effect is a simple chain - it's ALWAYS obvious.

The problem is that philosophy is a pedant magnet: it draws people who are in it for the brain wanking like moths to a flame.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Philosophy can and should have a connection applicable to the world, and if you weren't so busy trying to use this forum to increase your sense of self-worth, you'd take the criticism constructively instead of being a cock about it.

Oh, okay. Thanks for telling me what I should and shouldn't discuss.

I'm still surprised to hear you talking about what constitutes useful debate, as I have yet to read a post from you that isn't pointless whining.

 

[Cythraul]

Cause and effect is a simple chain - it's ALWAYS obvious.

What? This makes very little sense to me. How is it obvious? Could you tell just by examining the content of a philosophical work? If so, then you wouldn't even need to take a look at any cause and effect relationships. If on the other hand, you need to look around you to see what real life effects some philosophical work has or has had, well that's fine and dandy, but then what is it about the content of some debate or work that allows you to just look at it and declare it completely useless? Furthermore, it's not as if philosophical works are just always immediately taken up into the culture at large so that you can safely assume now what contemporary debate or work is useless or useful.

 

[Scourge of God]

What? This makes very little sense to me. How is it obvious?

Cause and effect is as a linear a process as there is. It's not hard to determine whether a question gets us any closer to developing something we can apply to the chief problem of philosophy - how to live in the world.

 

[Scourge of God]

Oh, okay. Thanks for telling me what I should and shouldn't discuss.

Sorry for failing to validate your individuality.

I'm still surprised to hear you talking about what constitutes useful debate, as I have yet to read a post from you that isn't pointless whining.

Yeah, because we all know that trying to shift discussion away from masturbation and toward more productive avenues is 'pointless whining.'

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah, because we all know that trying to shift discussion away from masturbation and toward more productive avenues is 'pointless whining.'

The only thing you seem to shift a discussion towards is endless and irrelevant bitching, which isn't very productive IMO.

 

[Scourge of God]

The only thing you seem to shift a discussion towards is endless and irrelevant bitching, which isn't very productive IMO.

It wouldn't be an issue if you weren't so busy being offended, kid.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It wouldn't be an issue if you weren't so busy being offended, kid.

Ah, sorry. It's just that I would've expected someone so preoccupied with productive discussion as yourself to want to have actual debates, not flame wars. Let me know when you're ready to get around to that.

 

[Cythraul]

Cause and effect is as a linear a process as there is. It's not hard to determine whether a question gets us any closer to developing something we can apply to the chief problem of philosophy - how to live in the world.

I find this response entirely unsatisfactory. That's ok. You can just go back to watching your Full House Season 1 dvd and let a real man do some philosophy around here.

 

[Seditious]

I was inspired by a quote from Scourge of God for this thread. He boldly stated that there is no reason to talk about things we won't know for sure

perhaps we're brains in a vat and none of this world or its people are real... we can't know for sure they're real, so we shouldn't talk about anything in what we consider life or our experience, not even this.


how dull it must be to talk to a radical skeptic.

 

[Seditious]

Philosophy can and should have a connection applicable to the world

even the most abstract bullshit has a connection to the world. Some twats in not understanding Kant claim he wasn't pragmatic enough, as if it's a philosophers job to spell out every little instance in which a principle works rather than giving the principle one can apply any more than a mathematician is supposed to write out every equation which works and give people a giant list of every way in which an algorhythm works in the real world---if I say 'if a is true then 1, if b is true then 2' I shouldn't need to hold your hand and walk you through to z if I've told you how you can get there. Someone should be able to use philosophical ideas and apply them to situations themselves, a philosopher shouldn't need to write a big rule book of everything you should do in any given situation so that you never have to do the math yourself. To me people who want uberpragmatic intuitive basic realworld ideas need to just coddle their utilitarianism until they're able to move on to less explicitly applicable ideas which require effort on their behalf.

 

[Black Core]

a metal community seems to draw together a highly eclectic group of people who share a wide range of beliefs and opinions. Didn't you yourself claim to be a Satanist, Core?

Yes, I don't see the point to this. Are you saying that every metalhead is a Satanist?

off-topic: If you want to use abreviations, please use BC instead of Core. Nothing wrong with Core but BC is what I'm used to

I think the real reason I bother to debate such things, though, is because it's fun.

I agree with that, I also find it fun to discuss about basicly anything and see everything from a diffrent angle

I think philosophy has more of an aesthetic quality to it than most people recognize. People are often strongly attracted to a certain worldview which would never come into play in any practical situation. A lot of debates over which of two beliefs is more correct often boil down to the participants admitting to each other that they simply find their own belief more attractive than that of their opponents.

true but alot of ppl can't handle the fact that both parties can be right when it comes to believes. Most often ppl can't even bring proper arguments why they think they are right and start insulting.

It's not that much different, really, from the music-related discussions we have on this forum. People who dislike a band will attack it based on various shortcomings - too pop-oriented, too abrasive, too slow, etc. - and a lot of the time the person who enjoys the band does so for the very reasons the detractor cites. Philosophy often works in a similar way.

very true

Good of you to miss my entire point, which was never about the knowable, but about the useful. I questioned whether engaging in ego boosting debates over issues that get us no closer to solutions serves a productive purpose, and you haven't gotten any closer to answering that question.

Try again.

Then I suggest you read my introduction thouroughly

I don't think it's quite so easy to make a clean demarcation between useful and useless debates. Well, some debates are just clearly useless in a "how is this going to improve the human condition?" sense. But methinks it's a bit unclear how to categorize quite a few philo debates in this sense. I think I am rambling. Bye.

Read the first post again.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yes, I don't see the point to this. Are you saying that every metalhead is a Satanist?

I wasn't suggesting that all metalheads are Satanists. I was just using you as an example of the diversity of beliefs held among metalheads. Hope that makes sense.

off-topic: If you want to use abreviations, please use BC instead of Core. Nothing wrong with Core but BC is what I'm used to

Oh.

 

[Black Core]

I wasn't suggesting that all metalheads are Satanists. I was just using you as an example of the diversity of beliefs held among metalheads. Hope that makes sense.

It's not just on a metal forum. My own forum even has a board on Satanism but it has Satanists, Christians, Taosts, etc. I don't think it has anything to do with the type of forum.