Philosophy

[Shadow]

:sl:

can someone teach me the basics of Philosophy?

and what is meta physics?

how many logical fallacies are there and what are they?

[Muezzin]

Definitions of metaphysics

link removed

Please note: I have never done Philosophy in my life, so this Google-fest may or may not be accurate :)


MODERATOR'S COMMENT: THAT IS ACTUALLY AN ANTI-ISLAMIC SITE.

[Shadow]

thanx bro
anyoneone else has any links or can help me with the basics? it will be appreciated

thanx again

[Shadow]

anyone?? :?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[HeiGou]

thanx bro
anyoneone else has any links or can help me with the basics? it will be appreciated

Always start with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaPhysics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

They will give you a thorough but fairly basic introduction to pretty much everything.

[08101990]

"Philosophy is the mother of every knowlege"

That's a basic, wouldn't you say... just one thing, I doubt you didn't already know that. :D

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I missed this thread - sorry.

Philosophy is possibly the most fascinating subject I've ever studied.

The most basic thing to know about philosophy is that it's essentially about questions. Difficult questions. They can sound easy, but they're not. Here are a few examples of the "classic" philosophical questions:

What is truth?
What is good?
What is justice?
What exists?
What is knowledge?
What's the difference between animals and humans?
Do we have souls?
Can machines think?

Pretty much every one of these questions is so huge as to require a separate discipline within philosophy dedicated to answering it. These questions can (probably) never be answered to everyone's satisfaction, but the more we interrogate a concept, the more clearly we can see what it is, and what it is not.

Here are a few suggestions for beginning to read about philosophy:

Bertrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy

This is one of the best introductions to the subject.

Rene Descartes - Discourse on Method

Written in the 17th century, but very clear, and a good way into reading classic philosophy.

Bad Thoughts - Jamie Whyte

A good modern introduction to flawed arguments (fallacies).

The Philosophy Gym - Stephen Law

An introduction to many of the "classic" philosophical problems, explained in a clear and friendly style.

Hopefully something there should be of interest; if you have any questions (and you will!) feel free to ask...

And remember, as Socrates once said: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

Peace

[Shadow]

Hopefully something there should be of interest; if you have any questions (and you will!) feel free to ask...

And remember, as Socrates once said: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

Peace

i dont get the quote :?
if he knows that he doesnt know anything then certainly he knows something doesnt he?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

i dont get the quote :?
if he knows that he doesnt know anything then certainly he knows something doesnt he?

Yes, but that knowledge is seriously devalued by what he says afterwards!

He's making a simple point, which is that most people assume that having 'knowledge' means you are 100% certain of something, so he says 'Well, if that's the case then I know nothing, because I can never be 100% sure of anything'.

Think about it. Would you be confident enough to say you're 100% sure that something is the case? I don't think I would.

Peace

[Shadow]

thanx for the reply it cleared my doubt

which philosophy school of thought teaches about human perception and stuff
I cant remember where but i have seen someone post

"It is impossible for us to prove our own existence"

so that sort of philosophy involves perception right?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl: br. Shadow,
I would advise that a muslim does not waste their time with philosophy at least until they have a solid understanding of the creed of their religion. (Read the ruling on philosophy here). Philosophy does not lead one anywhere but instead it increases them in confusion and uncertainty, until the point where they even doubt if anything around them exists (solipsism)! This is why the majority of early scholars took a very strong stance against philosophy and they urged Muslims to stick to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Imam Ghazali spent a period of his life in which he devoted himself to philosophy and went into much confusion and misguidance but later he recanted and called Muslims to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and warned them of the dangers of the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of philosophers.

:w:

[Shadow]

:sl: br. Shadow,
I would advise that a muslim does not waste their time with philosophy at least until they have a solid understanding of the creed of their religion. (Read the ruling on philosophy here). Philosophy does not lead one anywhere but instead it increases them in confusion and uncertainty, until the point where they even doubt if anything around them exists (solipsism)! This is why the majority of early scholars took a very strong stance against philosophy and they urged Muslims to stick to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Imam Ghazali spent a period of his life in which he devoted himself to philosophy and went into much confusion and misguidance but later he recanted and called Muslims to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and warned them of the dangers of the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of philosophers.

:w:

i didnt know that
but what about philosophical arguements, red herrings etc.
can i learn about fallacies?
it helps with debates

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl: bro,

i didnt know that
but what about philosophical arguements, red herrings etc.
can i learn about fallacies?
it helps with debates

Of course you can, please don't get me wrong when I say not to go into philosophy. I'm not talking about just studying logic and learning logical fallacies and methods of proofs, etc. I mean studying works of philosophy on existence, God, predestination, and other Islamic beliefs.

:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I would advise that a muslim does not waste their time with philosophy at least until they have a solid understanding of the creed of their religion. (Read the ruling on philosophy here). Philosophy does not lead one anywhere but instead it increases them in confusion and uncertainty, until the point where they even doubt if anything around them exists (solipsism)! This is why the majority of early scholars took a very strong stance against philosophy and they urged Muslims to stick to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Imam Ghazali spent a period of his life in which he devoted himself to philosophy and went into much confusion and misguidance but later he recanted and called Muslims to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and warned them of the dangers of the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of philosophers.

Phew, Ansar, that's quite a merciless attack!

If the Islamic view is that people should learn about Islam first before moving on to philosophy, that's fair enough. In your post above, however, you give a very reductive account of philosophy as a whole, including some slightly misleading points.

For instance, not all philosophers are solipsists in practice. Although the idea of absolute solipsism is by its very nature irrefutable and non-falsifiable, the fact that we do not have certain knowledge about the existence of anything except our own minds does not massively alter the way we go about our daily lives (unless, of course, we are philosophers engaging with the problem).

Your point about Imam Ghazali is interesting. His journey between philosophy and faith is one of the most fascinating I have come across, and he is highly respected among Western philosophers, even though they do not really know what to make of his final dedication to Islam.

When you mention 'the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of philosophers', are those your words or his?

I'm not talking about just studying logic and learning logical fallacies and methods of proofs, etc. I mean studying works of philosophy on existence, God, predestination, and other Islamic beliefs.

I was going to bring up the point about logic, but you have already answered it. I'm glad that we can agree that the study of logic is very useful indeed. After all, without logicians, computers probably wouldn't have been invented by now, and we wouldn't be having this conversation!

On the other areas, the position seems to be 'these questions have already been answered, so there's no need for you to think about them.' It strikes me as being a shame that people are encouraged not to question these beliefs. Of course, according to Western philosophers, these questions have not been finally answered, so there is plenty of scope for fruitful discussion on them.

What about some of the other areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, phenomenology, aesthetics or philosophy of science? There are many concepts within these disciplines that are of crucial importance for the modern mind, and (perhaps due to my ignorance) I can't really see how knowledge of them is inimical to Islam.

Since you mention that philosophers dealing with questions of existence and god ought to be avoided by Muslims, I'd better retract all of my earlier recommendations except Whyte's Bad Thoughts, since the other three all consider these questions. Descartes' account of them is the most famous, and it even includes his proof of the existence of god, although he accomplishes it through demonstrably specious means.

Peace

[Shadow]

Thanks for the replies

I have another question regarding this

http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com/

that site i just gave contains philosophy i think
its made by muslims dudes most probably
is that the sort of philosophy thats useful? :?
or shud i just stick to learning about fallacies?

in school they only teach about famous philosophers for some reason :?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com/

that site i just gave contains philosophy i think

The article on the site is not a work of philosophy, although it contains quotes from several philosophers. It's actually a religious text disguised as philosophy.

in school they only teach about famous philosophers for some reason :?

There's a reason why they're famous - they have each made fundamental contributions to the history of ideas. Your school is to be commended for offering the course. Are you studying philosophy at school now?

Peace

[Shadow]

There's a reason why they're famous - they have each made fundamental contributions to the history of ideas. Your school is to be commended for offering the course. Are you studying philosophy at school now?

Peace

not yet, im gonna take the course next semester but im just interested to know what im headed for

plus my friend takes the course and he tells me that there is alot of essay writing to do
Im not sure how Philosophy and Essay writing are connected

ps. im learning about philosophy because of the awsome ability to debate :p

[czgibson]

Greetings,

not yet, im gonna take the course next semester but im just interested to know what im headed for

plus my friend takes the course and he tells me that there is alot of essay writing to do
Im not sure how Philosophy and Essay writing are connected

ps. im learning about philosophy because of the awsome ability to debate :p

I'd highly recommend doing the course, and you've got a good reason for doing it. If you can debate skilfully on philosophical subjects, you should be able to argue a strong case on pretty much any subject you're familiar with. It's important that you can develop and sustain an argument, so this is where the essays come in. To give you an idea of the kind of thing you might come across in exams, here are a few examples of essay questions I answered at university:

Is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") a tautology?

What is Russell's paradox? What is its importance?

How convincing do you find Hume's argument on miracles?

Is Kant's categorical imperative sufficient as a basis for morality?

Obviously you need to get to know what these concepts are before you can answer the questions - how about having a look around the internet to get some ideas? Then you could let me know what you think or ask questions if you need any help. It would be good preparation for the course.

Before that, how about this one as a starter to get you thinking:

Is this a question?

Peace

[Muezzin]

I've got a better one than that, My Learned Friend!

How the heck do you pronounce 'Nietzche' anyway?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I've got a better one than that, My Learned Friend!

How the heck do you pronounce 'Nietzche' anyway?

With the greatest respect, Your Honour, you need to check your spelling of 'Nietzsche' first... :p

His name is pronounced 'knee - cher'.

Nietzsche has the best prose style of any of the great philosophers. Although Kant is probably the greatest philosopher of the modern era, he was a dreadful writer - he's tedious compared to Nietzsche. Nietzsche's not a good read for beginners, though, as he's easily misunderstood. One such beginner who misunderstood him very badly was Adolf Hitler.

Nietzsche's attitude shines through in everything he wrote. The four chapters of his "autobiography", Ecce Homo, are titled as follows: Why I Am So Wise, Why I Am So Clever, Why I Write Such Good Books and Why I Am A Destiny. I love a writer with confidence!

Peace

[Shadow]

Thanks for the replies

Greetings,
Is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") a tautology?

what is a tautology?

What is Russell's paradox? What is its importance?

ummm who is Russell? :?

How convincing do you find Hume's argument on miracles?

I have yet to see an arguement put forth by this man u speak of

Is Kant's categorical imperative sufficient as a basis for morality?

umm sure

how about having a look around the internet to get some ideas?

oh now u tell me AFTER i finish answering the questions :p

Is this a question?

Peace

okay to my knowledge, a sentence with a question mark is a question therefore it is a question

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Here are a few links that should help you out. They're mostly from Wikipedia, which is always a good place to look first if you're not sure what someone's going on about!

what is a tautology?

Tautology

ummm who is Russell? :?

Bertrand Russell

Russsell's paradox (This is a complicated one - you probably won't hear about it until late on in your course, if at all. It depends how far the course goes.)

I have yet to see an arguement put forth by this man u speak of

David Hume, the greatest British philosopher of all time. (In my view, at least.)

You'll find a short summary of Hume's argument on miracles on the page above. Here's another link in which a Christian argues against Hume's position:

Are Miracles Logically Impossible?

umm sure

Kant's Categorical Imperative

oh now u tell me AFTER i finish answering the questions :p

Sorry about that, my mistake. :)

Look, these are difficult questions, and no-one would expect you to have fully formed ideas about them without having first been introduced to the concepts they deal with. My advice would be to have a look at the issues involved, decide which question interests you most (if any of them do), and then read up on it in more depth. Since you're a religious person, perhaps the argument on miracles would be of interest?

okay to my knowledge, a sentence with a question mark is a question therefore it is a question

That's a good approach to start off with. If it's a question, what is it asking about?

Peace

[Shadow]

Thanks for the link
Ill read the stuff to get a better understanding

as for the question

If it's a question, what is it asking about?

Hmm
It is asking about a certain fact or an opinion

hey keep asking me these if you dont mind ofcourse
its fun to try to solve, plus it makes me think (havent done that in a while) :smile:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Callum :)

In your post above, however, you give a very reductive account of philosophy as a whole, including some slightly misleading points.

I agree that it is probably not correct to place all studies in philosophy in the same boat; as the fatwa I linked to earlier mentions:

Some aspects of what comes under the banner of “philosophy” today are quite beneficial. For example, a proper understanding of modern science and its inherent limitations cannot be had without studying the philosophy of science.

Logic is one branch of philosophy that my warning would not pertain to. It seems like there is a fine line dividing various branches of philosophy, but most of the other questions philosophers ask are the questions for which God revealed answers in the divine guidance He has sent us. Hence, a Muslim should at least ensure that he/she has learned the fundamentals of his/her religion before pursuing such philosophical studies.

For instance, not all philosophers are solipsists in practice. Although the idea of absolute solipsism is by its very nature irrefutable and non-falsifiable, the fact that we do not have certain knowledge about the existence of anything except our own minds does not massively alter the way we go about our daily lives (unless, of course, we are philosophers engaging with the problem).

Which is related in a way to my point concerning the futility of [some branches of] philosophy. If philosophy was a fruitful study, then we would expect the philosophers to progress in a unified direction towards common conclusions and theories, as have the scientists and mathematicians. But instead we find confusion and disagreement amongst the philosophers.

When you mention 'the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of philosophers', are those your words or his?

My words, although he did write the book entitled, Tahafut al-Falasifa, 'Incoherence of philosophers'.

On the other areas, the position seems to be 'these questions have already been answered, so there's no need for you to think about them.' It strikes me as being a shame that people are encouraged not to question these beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'question these beliefs'. If you mean seeking clarification on them, then of course Muslims can do that. But the whole purpose of God sending revelation is so that we wouldn't be lost in confusion and uncertainty like the philosophers we see. What is the purpose of God sending revelation to explain our purpose in life if people are to abandon it and take guesses and conjecture about the universe we live in? This is why Imam Shafi'i and others said that those who engaged in philosophy were to be publically declared to have abandoned the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Of course, according to Western philosophers, these questions have not been finally answered

Nor will they ever be finally answered, according to western philosophers. Am I right or wrong?

What about some of the other areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, phenomenology, aesthetics or philosophy of science? There are many concepts within these disciplines that are of crucial importance for the modern mind, and (perhaps due to my ignorance) I can't really see how knowledge of them is inimical to Islam.

Epistemology and phenomenology seem to fall under those branches of philosophy which have some aspects that are beneficial, others that are futile, and perhaps even others that run contrary to Islam. Of course I have not studied these branches of philosophy so any verdict I pass on them should be taken with a grain of salt. Philosophy of science seems like something more beneficial for Muslims to learn, and the ruling of aesthetics would depend on the ruling on the art/music involved.

:sl: Shadow,

I have another question regarding this

http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com/

This site propagates views on the soul that run contrary to the orthodox understanding from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It's basically a recycled version of solipsism disguised as religious theology (funny how both Callum and I rejected this site but in opposite ways :okay: ). Others have pointed out that the implications of these ideas are very similar to the heretical doctrine of Wahdatul Wujood, which Harun Yahya attempts to deny but fails to put forward a coherent response.

This is precisely why I said that you should first learn the fundamentals of Islam before studying these issues so that you will easily be able to recognize heretical views like the above. You can find a good list of books to study from here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...resources.html

:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Hmm
It is asking about a certain fact or an opinion

OK, but could you make your answer more specific?

If I ask someone "Do I look OK?", I'm asking for an opinion about myself. "Is this a question?" works in a similar way. What precisely is it asking about?

hey keep asking me these if you dont mind ofcourse
its fun to try to solve, plus it makes me think (havent done that in a while)

Certainly, I'm happy to oblige. As additional information, the question I'm following through with you now is related to philosophy of language. (That might give you a clue of the direction we're heading with it. ;))

Greetings Ansar,

I agree that it is probably not correct to place all studies in philosophy in the same boat; as the fatwa I linked to earlier mentions:

Some aspects of what comes under the banner of “philosophy” today are quite beneficial. For example, a proper understanding of modern science and its inherent limitations cannot be had without studying the philosophy of science.

The fatwa is absolutely right on this point.

Logic is one branch of philosophy that my warning would not pertain to. It seems like there is a fine line dividing various branches of philosophy, but most of the other questions philosophers ask are the questions for which God revealed answers in the divine guidance He has sent us. Hence, a Muslim should at least ensure that he/she has learned the fundamentals of his/her religion before pursuing such philosophical studies.

That seems eminently fair, and you're right to point out the fine line that divides many of the philosophical disciplines. Many questions can be addressed using the different techniques of each of them. This can often cast the question in new and revealing light.

Which is related in a way to my point concerning the futility of [some branches of] philosophy. If philosophy was a fruitful study, then we would expect the philosophers to progress in a unified direction towards common conclusions and theories, as have the scientists and mathematicians. But instead we find confusion and disagreement amongst the philosophers.

You're right to an extent, but this is not entirely fair. Philosophy does actually progress in a manner akin to science - I think you're underestimating the amount of disagreement that exists among scientists on certain questions, and overestimating the disagreements among philosophers. On the question of god's existence, for example, the majority of Western philosophers are now not theists. This represents a definite move away from the general position in earlier times - there has definitely been a unification on this question, although, of course, disagreement still exists. Similarly, it is now the norm to find philosophers who agree with Kant's analytic / synthetic distinction, while Aristotle's logic, dominant for centuries, is now universally rejected.

My words, although he did write the book entitled, Tahafut al-Falasifa, 'Incoherence of philosophers'.

He did indeed, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the words of philosophers as nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'question these beliefs'. If you mean seeking clarification on them, then of course Muslims can do that.

I suppose I mean something closer to examining them, and comparing them to other possibilities on offer.

But the whole purpose of God sending revelation is so that we wouldn't be lost in confusion and uncertainty like the philosophers we see. What is the purpose of God sending revelation to explain our purpose in life if people are to abandon it and take guesses and conjecture about the universe we live in?

Well, if people have examined all the options and found the revelations of Islam to be the most appropriate for them, that is of course fair enough. It just seems that Muslims are being discouraged from even giving other possibilities any consideration, and this, in my view, can only lead to a narrow world-view.

This is why Imam Shafi'i and others said that those who engaged in philosophy were to be publically declared to have abandoned the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

How about if a Muslim who was firm in their faith, and very knowledgable about it (such as yourself, perhaps), were to begin studying philosophy? Do you think they would then be considered to have abandoned the Qur'an and Sunnah?

Nor will they ever be finally answered, according to western philosophers. Am I right or wrong?

Nobody can say this for certain, but it seems unlikely that many questions of a philosophical nature can be definitively answered. However, as the Socratic method shows, interrogating a concept can often bring us closer to understanding what it is through clarifying what it is not.

Epistemology and phenomenology seem to fall under those branches of philosophy which have some aspects that are beneficial, others that are futile, and perhaps even others that run contrary to Islam. Of course I have not studied these branches of philosophy so any verdict I pass on them should be taken with a grain of salt.

Epistemology concerns theories of knowledge: what it is and how it works. It can help with understanding many other disciplines within philosophy as well as psychology and neuroscience.

Phenomenology is an attempt at a precise description of human experience, and as such it has similar relations to epistemology. It's one of the more complicated domains of philosophy, but when studied deeply it can be very revealing.

Philosophy of science seems like something more beneficial for Muslims to learn, and the ruling of aesthetics would depend on the ruling on the art/music involved.

I absolutely agree with you about philosophy of science. It's one of the most interesting subjects I've ever looked into. For those who are interested in reading more about it, here are some important thinkers in the subject:

Karl Popper

Thomas Kuhn

Bas van Fraassen

When it comes to aesthetics, I understand the restrictions placed on Muslims with regard to art and music, but it's worth noting that the subject itself can be applied to any artistic field whatsoever.

Peace

[Shadow]

Greetings Czgibson :)

If I ask someone "Do I look OK?", I'm asking for an opinion about myself. "Is this a question?" works in a similar way. What precisely is it asking about?

This is harder than expected

"Do I look OK?" is a question that is asking about an opinion from a different perspective

But "Is this a question?" is asking the person if he/she thinks it is a question or not

So I guess the answer would be that the question is asking about a different opinion from someone else (same question, different perspective).

OK if im still wrong then give me a hint or clue :p

Certainly, I'm happy to oblige. As additional information, the question I'm following through with you now is related to philosophy of language.

wow, That brings up another question in my mind.
How many subjects of Philosophy are there?

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

This is harder than expected

Philosophy is by no means an easy subject. It gets easier, though, once you get used to the kinds of tricks that can be played with logic, meaning and ideas. There's a kind of 'training of the brain' required once you start to consider questions in philosophy.

"Do I look OK?" is a question that is asking about an opinion from a different perspective

But "Is this a question?" is asking the person if he/she thinks it is a question or not

So I guess the answer would be that the question is asking about a different opinion from someone else (same question, different perspective).

OK if im still wrong then give me a hint or clue :p

You're so close to the answer that I'll have to reveal all. The point is that the question is asking about itself. Because of this, it is actually an ill-formed question, because questions that are formed correctly cannot ask about themselves; they have to ask about a subject other than themselves. This kind of question looks like a paradox, but in fact it's slightly different. All the same, I'd recommend having a look at some paradoxes as a good way of encouraging your mind to begin thinking philosophically.

Here's a very detailed paper which deals with questions of this kind in relation to quantum physics. Don't worry if you have trouble understanding parts of it - I find a lot of it very difficult too:

Quantum question theory

Have a look at the Definitions section at the beginning for a quick explanation of what makes a question ill-formed. Also, if you have a look at the bottom of page 9, you'll find the "question" I gave you given as an example.

Incidentally, this is one that I never faced at university - I heard about it from one of my teachers at school, who did. He didn't remember what he wrote in response to it, but he did remember that the student who got the highest mark for that exam wrote the following in response to it:

If that is a question, then this is the answer.

You're to be commended for your answers so far - you came very close for a first attempt. In fact, I think you may well have grasped the essential point of the exercise without being quite sure of how to express it in words. That's a skill that develops as you study the subject.

Anyway, well done.

wow, That brings up another question in my mind.
How many subjects of Philosophy are there?

Now you've got me. New disciplines are being created all the time; many of them are of the form "philosophy of..." Have a look at the following page - it forms a good introduction to the major branches of the subject:

Philosophy - Wikipedia entry

At the bottom of that page you'll find links to the major branches of philosophy. There's even one called "philosophy of philosophy", which I must admit I'd never heard of before!

All of that should give you plenty to think about - and remember, I'll be happy to try and answer any questions you come up against.

Peace

[Shadow]

Greetings Czgibson

You're so close to the answer that I'll have to reveal all. The point is that the question is asking about itself. Because of this, it is actually an ill-formed question, because questions that are formed correctly cannot ask about themselves; they have to ask about a subject other than themselves. This kind of question looks like a paradox, but in fact it's slightly different. All the same, I'd recommend having a look at some paradoxes as a good way of encouraging your mind to begin thinking philosophically.

Thanks for the link. I was so close to the answer though, but believe me, if I was given a week or even a month, I still wouldnt find the answer :p
Its like those brain teasers and riddles, and those darn probability questions.

Here's a very detailed paper which deals with questions of this kind in relation to quantum physics. Don't worry if you have trouble understanding parts of it - I find a lot of it very difficult too:

Quantum question theory

The link isnt working for me at the moment but isnt relation to Quatum Physics a philosophy of science?

Incidentally, this is one that I never faced at university - I heard about it from one of my teachers at school, who did. He didn't remember what he wrote in response to it, but he did remember that the student who got the highest mark for that exam wrote the following in response to it:

If that is a question, then this is the answer.

His answer didnt make any sense to me at all :?
(what if he is Aristotle's desendant? :p )

Anyway, well done.

Thanks :smile:

Philosophy - Wikipedia entry

At the bottom of that page you'll find links to the major branches of philosophy. There's even one called "philosophy of philosophy", which I must admit I'd never heard of before!

Isnt that quote a tautology?
But then again a tautology requires indirect words which mean the same thing right?

oh and I have another question regarding Descartes

"cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am")

what does he really mean by that exactly?

does it mean what ever he thinks, he becomes? or he is?

if I know a bit more I might answer the question if it is a tautology or not

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Callum,

On the question of god's existence, for example, the majority of Western philosophers are now not theists.

That maybe true, but that (Atheism) is also the general trend in western society today as well, for a number of reasons. I'm not convinced that it has actually come about from a progression in logic.

Similarly, it is now the norm to find philosophers who agree with Kant's analytic / synthetic distinction, while Aristotle's logic, dominant for centuries, is now universally rejected.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

I suppose I mean something closer to examining them, and comparing them to other possibilities on offer.

Yes, Muslims are encouraged to keep an open-mind and think for themselves, but they just need to ensure that they have a solid understanding of their own religion before they start exploring other religions and philosophies.

Someone who has studied and learned the fundamentals of Islam can certainly examine the beliefs and theories of other rleigions and philosophies.

Epistemology concerns theories of knowledge: what it is and how it works. It can help with understanding many other disciplines within philosophy as well as psychology and neuroscience.

Phenomenology is an attempt at a precise description of human experience, and as such it has similar relations to epistemology. It's one of the more complicated domains of philosophy, but when studied deeply it can be very revealing.

Well then, from your definitions it seems like there is little in these branches that Muslims would be discouraged from studying. :)

Peace!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The link isnt working for me at the moment but isnt relation to Quatum Physics a philosophy of science?

Yes. The question I gave you concerns philosophy of language, but the article uses it to make connections with quantum theory, which, as you say, is a concern of the philosophy of science.

His answer didnt make any sense to me at all :?
(what if he is Aristotle's desendant? :p )

It's more of a joke than a serious answer - evidently the examiner liked it, though!

Isnt that quote a tautology?
But then again a tautology requires indirect words which mean the same thing right?

It's not quite a tautology, although I can see what you're getting at. Philosophy of philosophy is an examination of the way philosophy is done, so in other words it means being philosophical about philosophy. It's similar to one type of definition of philosophy as a whole: some people describe the subject as "thinking about thinking" or "arguing about arguments".

Additionally, you are absolutely right in your understanding of what a tautology is. Here are a few examples of tautologies, just to solidify the concept for you: "He was an unmarried bachelor"; "I like drinking wet water"; "I drive an automobile car".

oh and I have another question regarding Descartes

what does he really mean by that exactly?

does it mean what ever he thinks, he becomes? or he is?

if I know a bit more I might answer the question if it is a tautology or not

This famous quote from Descartes is to do with proving that he himself exists. Descartes set himself the task of discovering how we could be certain in our knowledge. The mind and the senses, he argued, can often deceive us. For instance, when I am dreaming, I believe that what I see before me is real, when in fact it is not. Or, he thought, perhaps an evil demon exists, whose job is to deceive me about the true nature of reality. He wanted to have a firm ground on which to base all our natural assumptions about reality, and thus to arrive at the unarguable truth.

His method was as follows: he attempted to doubt absolutely everything he possibly could, in order to see what was left. He found that the only thing he could not doubt, even for the briefest moment, was the content of his thoughts. For Descartes, the thoughts inside the mind of every individual are the most immediately real things in that individual's experience. Everything else, he thought, can be doubted to a greater or lesser degree, even the existence of one's own body.

Since he was able to say "I think", and be absolutely sure that this was the case, he argued that there must be an "I" that is doing the thinking. Hence, he proves his own existence with "I think, therefore I am." He felt so proud of this discovery that he said it in Latin, the language of scholars at the time, in his original French text of the Discourse on Method. The original formulation is: "cogito, ergo sum".

Now you know the background to the quote, perhaps you can have a go at deciding whether you think it is a tautology or not. Think about what possible reason there could be for people to think that this could be a tautology.

Hi Ansar,

That maybe true, but that (Atheism) is also the general trend in western society today as well, for a number of reasons. I'm not convinced that it has actually come about from a progression in logic.

You're right that atheism is a general trend in Western society, but that trend started with the sceptical arguments of philosophers. Those who began the trend of modern atheism were d'Holbach, Hobbes, Diderot, Voltaire and, most importantly, Hume. To find out about the arguments that have led to modern atheism, I would recomemend reading Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Someone who has studied and learned the fundamentals of Islam can certainly examine the beliefs and theories of other rleigions and philosophies.

That seems fair enough, but do they need to be a convinced Muslim before they can go on and look elsewhere?

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi

Is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") a tautology?

okay I think I got it

the above quote IS a tautology because its basically repeating itself

its like saying

I have sight, therfore I see

Since he used his own perception to prove his own self, its a tautology

(ps. dont laugh if im wrong :p )

[czgibson]

Greetings,

okay I think I got it

the above quote IS a tautology because its basically repeating itself

its like saying

I have sight, therfore I see

Since he used his own perception to prove his own self, its a tautology

(ps. dont laugh if im wrong :p )

Brilliant! You've got most of the answer. You've pointed out why it's a tautology from the logical point of view. There is also a linguistic point, which is closely related to what you've said. As a test, let's see if you can get this one, and then you'll have the complete answer. I'll give you a clue: when he says "I think", he is saying two things. What are they?

Peace

[Shadow]

Greetings,

Brilliant! You've got most of the answer. You've pointed out why it's a tautology from the logical point of view. There is also a linguistic point, which is closely related to what you've said. As a test, let's see if you can get this one, and then you'll have the complete answer. I'll give you a clue: when he says "I think", he is saying two things. What are they?

Peace

I guess it would be that

1. He thinks or is capable of thinking i.e his brain generates thought

2. He might be wrong, that is why he placed the "I think" because he doesnt have solid proof, the only thing he is relying on is his own thought

(im clueless now :? )

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I guess it would be that

1. He thinks or is capable of thinking i.e his brain generates thought

2. He might be wrong, that is why he placed the "I think" because he doesnt have solid proof, the only thing he is relying on is his own thought

(im clueless now :? )

You're right with 1, but I'm not sure about 2. Here's how I would put it:

When Descartes says "I think", he is saying the following two things:

1. Something called "I" exists.

and

2. It thinks.

So, as soon as Descartes says the word "I", he is asserting the existence of "I". Therefore, he does not need to go on and say "...therefore I am", because he has already asserted this simply by saying "I".

This is related to the point you mentioned earlier about Descartes using his own perceptions to prove his own existence, so we could say it is a tautology for both these reasons.

The fact that this is a tautology does not mean it is invalid, though. Not all tautologies are pointless like "He was an unmarried bachelor". If you think about it, all definitions are tautologies. So if I say "A bachelor is an unmarried man", suddenly the sentence is useful, because I have explained the meaning of 'bachelor'.

Similarly, with "I think, therefore I am", Descartes has told us something about the meaning of existence. What he has said, in effect, is "I exist, because I think". That's still a tautology, but it tells us something about the slippery concept of existence that we didn't know before.

Peace

[Shadow]

wow I would never have guessed.

thats amazing to know so much from just 2 words :)

Ive read most of the links you gave but I still have a hard time trying to solve the questions you posted

What is Russell's paradox? What is its importance?

How convincing do you find Hume's argument on miracles?

Is Kant's categorical imperative sufficient as a basis for morality?

can you explain Russell's paradox in layman's terms because I have no clue what the equation stands for :?

Thanks in advance :)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

wow I would never have guessed.

thats amazing to know so much from just 2 words :)

Ive read most of the links you gave but I still have a hard time trying to solve the questions you posted

Yes, these are not easy questions. They come from exam papers that I sat during the last two years of my degree, so don't feel bad because you find them difficult.

can you explain Russell's paradox in layman's terms because I have no clue what the equation stands for :?

Thanks in advance :)

This is probably the most difficult question I gave. To answer it you really need to have a good grounding in logic, and even then it's far from easy. To be honest, I shouldn't have suggested that you attempt this question because doing that would more than likely put you off the idea of doing philosophy! What I intended to do was simply to give you an idea of what philosophy exam questions look like.

To satisfy your curiosity, I can tell you that Russell's paradox is based on something called set theory. This is a method of dividing up the objects, ideas and propositions of the world into groups in order to deal with them logically. The German philosopher Gottlob Frege, while searching for a firm basis for mathematics, set up a logical system that made use of set theory. Russell pointed out a possible flaw in Frege's system which was in fact deadly, and it proved that Frege's system was unworkable.

Later on, the American mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that mathematical systems must always be incomplete, and hence that Frege had been involved with an impossible project. To put it simply, nobody can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. It's only true if we accept the basic axioms of maths, which cannot themselves be proven. Gödel proved that all mathematical systems must be incomplete in this way.

Here's a question that's much easier, yet it points to an important fact about our knowledge, known as the problem of induction:

Can we be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Peace

[Shadow]

Greetings,


Yes, these are not easy questions. They come from exam papers that I sat during the last two years of my degree, so don't feel bad because you find them difficult.

And all this time I was thinking that these questions are the basics of philosophy :p

I shouldn't have suggested that you attempt this question because doing that would more than likely put you off the idea of doing philosophy!

nah its alright, im always up for a challenge, especially one that I cant solve :p

To satisfy your curiosity, I can tell you that Russell's paradox is based on something called set theory. This is a method of dividing up the objects, ideas and propositions of the world into groups in order to deal with them logically. The German philosopher Gottlob Frege, while searching for a firm basis for mathematics, set up a logical system that made use of set theory. Russell pointed out a possible flaw in Frege's system which was in fact deadly, and it proved that Frege's system was unworkable.

Later on, the American mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that mathematical systems must always be incomplete, and hence that Frege had been involved with an impossible project. To put it simply, nobody can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. It's only true if we accept the basic axioms of maths, which cannot themselves be proven. Gödel proved that all mathematical systems must be incomplete in this way.

Amazing, I had no idea that math and philosophy are connected

Here's a question that's much easier, yet it points to an important fact about our knowledge, known as the problem of induction:

Can we be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow?

If tomorrow is a normal day just like everyday, we can be certain with no doubt that the sun will rise.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If tomorrow is a normal day just like everyday, we can be certain with no doubt that the sun will rise.

Can we be sure that tomorrow will be a normal day? And what do you mean by a normal day anyway?

Peace

[Shadow]

Hello,

Can we be sure that tomorrow will be a normal day?

no we cannot be sure and that is why I placed an ' if '
(ps. i wud have given the answer and no we cant be certain but then I read tht univ students answer and decided to place the 'if' as well to give the answer a condition)

And what do you mean by a normal day anyway?

normal day= normal orbital patterns, no sun being destroyed, all planets are behaving in the predicted motion, no comets hitting earth etc.

[cleo]

Bush studies philosophy, hmmm.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

no we cannot be sure and that is why I placed an ' if '
(ps. i wud have given the answer and no we cant be certain but then I read tht univ students answer and decided to place the 'if' as well to give the answer a condition)

normal day= normal orbital patterns, no sun being destroyed, all planets are behaving in the predicted motion, no comets hitting earth etc.

Good stuff - you're right. I've got to go right now, so I'll give you a fuller response later.

Bush studies philosophy, hmmm.

Does he? I find that very surprising. The man can hardly string a sentence together.

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Peace

[Shadow]

Hello,

Good stuff - you're right. I've got to go right now, so I'll give you a fuller response later.

okay :)

Does he? I find that very surprising. The man can hardly string a sentence together.

Ive seen a documentary which shows that the majority of people appeal to stupidity, and in the end of the documentary it says something like smart people sometimes act stupid just to appeal to the masses.

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

You've got the question about the sun rising tomorrow correct. Well done.

We can't be sure the sun will rise tomorrow for the reasons you've given. Most people think we can be sure it will happen, because it has happened so many times in the past. This is an inductive argument, one which says that things that have happened repeatedly in the past can be expected to happen in the future. It's an argument that people make all the time, but there is a problem with it. As you have highlighted, unusual events can happen which interfere with the process in question. In our case, the idea that comets could hit the earth etc.

The problem with induction is that our best reason for believing it to be logically valid is that inductive arguments have often been successful in the past. In other words, our best reason for believing in inductive arguments is itself an inductive argument!

Ive seen a documentary which shows that the majority of people appeal to stupidity, and in the end of the documentary it says something like smart people sometimes act stupid just to appeal to the masses.

People have claimed this about Mr. Bush, but I'm not buying it. His exam results speak for themselves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_l...George_W._Bush

Peace

[Shadow]

The problem with induction is that our best reason for believing it to be logically valid is that inductive arguments have often been successful in the past. In other words, our best reason for believing in inductive arguments is itself an inductive argument!

Are we allowed to use inductive arguements in debates?

People have claimed this about Mr. Bush, but I'm not buying it. His exam results speak for themselves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_l...George_W._Bush

He went to Yale :?
But his grades werent high :?
anyways lets stick to philosophy :)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Are we allowed to use inductive arguements in debates?

Of course, but as long as we are aware that they have that peculiarity I mentioned. Many scientific laws have inductive reasoning as their basis. It is partly for this reason that scientists don't say "my theory is definitely true" - instead they say "my theory hasn't been falsified yet".

Peace

[Shadow]

Greetings,


Of course, but as long as we are aware that they have that peculiarity I mentioned. Many scientific laws have inductive reasoning as their basis. It is partly for this reason that scientists don't say "my theory is definitely true" - instead they say "my theory hasn't been falsified yet".

Peace

ah so my theory that the sun will rise tomorrow hasnt been falsified yet ;)

[shudnt_have]

Salaams

I plan on studying the philo from the basics too
Right now, I am stuck with idea of "existentialism" (lets see if I spelled it right)
I have read many books, philo encyclopedia on this topic.. it is still confusing

For a minute I think I got a hang of the topic..while at the other, I think I dont understand a word.

any comments?

[Knut Hamsun]

CZGibson:
I really like your posts in this thread... great job, as it is both a massive topic to tackle, and because philosophy has, at times in its history, suffered from an infusion of wordy obfuscations (read:"postmodernism") and senseless diversions. I wholly agree with your :

Nietzsche has the best prose style of any of the great philosophers.

For he alone it is that I wish I could read German! He is brilliant enough in translation, I can't imagine him in the original. A highly spiritual soul , was he! Very misunderstood.

Anyhow, to the student who is just beginning a study of philosophy,
I find it very helpful to wade through the pools of the subject by asking what the GreatOne(Aristotle) asked...
"Which is the Ideal life?"
"Which is the Just life?"
"Which ideas/beliefs/systems most promote the qualities that are best for our society?"
"How can I be most HAPPY"
(I a paraphrasing, here, but this is the general gist)
To me, the best philosophies have inquired into deeply personal spiritual questions, not unlike those of the greatest religions. If you study philosophy with this spiritual hunger in you, you will find some great ideas (and also some boring and unrelated stuff, so hang in there!!!)!!!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

ah so my theory that the sun will rise tomorrow hasnt been falsified yet ;)

Quite right!

I plan on studying the philo from the basics too
Right now, I am stuck with idea of "existentialism" (lets see if I spelled it right)
I have read many books, philo encyclopedia on this topic.. it is still confusing

For a minute I think I got a hang of the topic..while at the other, I think I dont understand a word.

any comments?

Existentialism doesn't really have any simple definition. It's a term that covers the thought and work of lots of philosophers, novelists and artists, and they often disagree with each other about what it means.

Existential writings often include a concern with existence, and what it means for us; freedom, and what we should do with it; the fact that our lives are something that we create, rather than being something set out for us in advance.

This all sounds very woolly and abstract, because it is. The best way to understand existentialism is to read about it. The key existentialist philosopher is Jean-Paul Sartre, and his key text is Being and Nothingness. The trouble is that this is very big book, and it's quite difficult to understand if you're not already familiar with lots of other philosophy. To get to grips with Sartre, I'd recommend reading his lecture Existentialism and Humanism, which is shorter and clearer. Another option is to read Albert Camus' novel L'etranger (translated as 'The Stranger' or 'The Outsider'), which gives a good insight into the existential mind.

Here's an article on the subject that I think makes a good attempt at summing up the whole idea:

Existentialism

Don't worry too much about the warning at the top of the page; it's difficult to give an overview of existentialism without saying something that somebody else disagrees with.

Hope that helps!

I really like your posts in this thread... great job, as it is both a massive topic to tackle, and because philosophy has, at times in its history, suffered from an infusion of wordy obfuscations (read:"postmodernism") and senseless diversions.

Greetings Knut,

Firstly, may I say what a treat it is to have a Nobel prize-winning Danish novelist on board! You must be over a hundred years old by now...:p

I agree that when talking about philosophy it's best to eschew obfuscation - sorry, I mean avoid using difficult words. If you get riled by postmodernist ramblings, I'd recommend reading Alain Sokal's Intellectual Impostures if you haven't already done so. It's the story of how he hoaxed some academic journals into publishing a postmodernist paper he'd written, and which he freely admits is meaningless. They published it; he proved his point.

I wholly agree with your :
Quote:
Nietzsche has the best prose style of any of the great philosophers.
For he alone it is that I wish I could read German! He is brilliant enough in translation, I can't imagine him in the original. A highly spiritual soul , was he! Very misunderstood.

I'm the same - apparently he's brilliant in the original German. I've had more than one German-speaker tell me that Nietzsche is the best prose writer in German.

Anyhow, to the student who is just beginning a study of philosophy,
I find it very helpful to wade through the pools of the subject by asking what the GreatOne(Aristotle) asked...
"Which is the Ideal life?"
"Which is the Just life?"
"Which ideas/beliefs/systems most promote the qualities that are best for our society?"
"How can I be most HAPPY"
(I a paraphrasing, here, but this is the general gist)

I agree, the best way to start philosophy is by thinking about the kinds of questions philosophers ask. Three out of four of those questions you've asked can be found in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, while he deals with the third in his Politics. The Politics is much harder than the Ethics, and in general I'd suggest starting with a philosopher other than Aristotle. My two reasons for this are that firstly, he's quite difficult to get to grips with, and secondly, he was very wise and influential, but unfortunately he was wrong about almost everything...

To me, the best philosophies have inquired into deeply personal spiritual questions, not unlike those of the greatest religions. If you study philosophy with this spiritual hunger in you, you will find some great ideas (and also some boring and unrelated stuff, so hang in there!!!)!!!

I can kind of see what you mean here, but I'm not sure this applies to all philosophers. The logicians, for instance? Frege, Wittgenstein and Russell?

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi,

Is Existentialism related to Sophilisim?

Oh and about Aristotle,

I'd suggest starting with a philosopher other than Aristotle. My two reasons for this are that firstly, he's quite difficult to get to grips with, and secondly, he was very wise and influential, but unfortunately he was wrong about almost everything...

How come he was famous if his studies were very difficult and he was wrong about alot of things? :?
Was he famous for his influence and political power?

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Is Existentialism related to Sophilisim?

I'm not sure what you mean by sophilisim. Are you thinking of solipsism? They're not really related - i.e. you don't need to be a solipsist to be an existentialist and vice versa.

How come he was famous if his studies were very difficult and he was wrong about alot of things? :?
Was he famous for his influence and political power?

Good question. One reason why I say he's difficult is because many of his works have only survived in fragentary form. The Politics consist of a number of lecture notes used by Aristotle. We are not sure if they are in the right order, or how many other lectures were part of the series. Also, because they are his own personal notes, he hasn't made everything totally clear in them. Presumably he could remember roughly what he wanted to say, so he didn't need to write every detail in his notes. This makes understanding them quite difficult for the modern reader.

Aristotle's thought was dominant in Western society during the Middle Ages, mainly due to the influence of the Church. The Christian Fathers decided that Aristotle's thought gave a good philosophical backing to Christian doctrine, and so they pushed for his ideas to be a major part of the Christian education system (such as it was) of the day. It was during the period between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (so I'm talking roughly 16th - late 17th century) that Aristotle's ideas began to be superseded, and only during the 19th century that his logical system was decisively refuted.

To me, Aristotle has always seemed like a slightly odd choice for use by the Christian Fathers, since he was what would later be called an empiricist, one who believes that all our ideas derive ultimately from our senses. Plato was a more mystical philosopher, perhaps more in tune with religious thought. However, the problem with Plato was that there is a lot of scepticism in his work, so maybe that's what turned the Church Fathers against him. Anyway, this is just me rambling. An important word to take with you from this is empiricist (see the link above) - you'll come across it a lot in philosophical studies.

Aristotle himself was not a hugely powerful person, although he did run a school of philosophy in Athens, the Lyceum, so that gave him a certain amount of prestige, I suppose. He was also famous for being Plato's star pupil, and for being the tutor of Alexander the Great. You can find out more about him here:

Aristotle

I hope that's of some interest. Of Aristotle's books, only the Nichomachean Ethics is usually taught on first year degree courses. If you're interested in Aristotle, that would be the place to start.

However, I would recommend Plato as being an easier philosopher to get on with when you're starting out. He wrote dialogues, so you can see the arguments developing clearly. The main character in the dialogues is Socrates, the most legendary of all philosophers. Plato was taught by Socrates, but Socrates did not write any of his ideas down. Plato took it upon himself to immortalise his master in his own work. For this reason, we do not know how much of the ideas in Plato's work belongs to Socrates and how much to Plato, but this is not hugely important.

What is important are the works themselves. A good one to start off with might be the Symposium, which is a philosophical discussion about love. The best of Plato's works is the Republic, which is a wide ranging discussion based around the question of "what is justice?"

Plato is often regarded as being one of the most pleasant philosophers to read. There is a fair amount of humour in his work, and most of all, there is the character of Socrates. He is probably the most intelligent character I have come across in all literature, and it is impossible not to be in awe of him him as you read the dialogues.

Hopefully something in this rather long and rambling post of mine will have caught your interest. Let me know if you're going to start reading some philosophy, and I'll help out if needed (and if I can, of course!).

Peace

[Shadow]

Thank you for the detailed post, it cleared alot of misconceptions in my mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by sophilisim. Are you thinking of solipsism?

tomato, tomatoe same thing :p

It was during the period between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (so I'm talking roughly 16th - late 17th century) that Aristotle's ideas began to be superseded, and only during the 19th century that his logical system was decisively refuted.

So does that mean the Church taught its students about Aristotle's ideas all the way to the 19th century, including his ideas about everything coming from our senses?

Aristotle himself was not a hugely powerful person, although he did run a school of philosophy in Athens, the Lyceum, so that gave him a certain amount of prestige, I suppose. He was also famous for being Plato's star pupil, and for being the tutor of Alexander the Great.

I didnt know that Plato was older than Aristotle, all these years I thought they were school buddies :p

I hope that's of some interest. Of Aristotle's books, only the Nichomachean Ethics is usually taught on first year degree courses. If you're interested in Aristotle, that would be the place to start.

Im actually interested in their ideas more than their history

However, I would recommend Plato as being an easier philosopher to get on with when you're starting out. He wrote dialogues, so you can see the arguments developing clearly. The main character in the dialogues is Socrates, the most legendary of all philosophers.

If Socrates is the most legendary philosopher of all time, did his ideas and views affect history and the way we live today? :?

Plato was taught by Socrates, but Socrates did not write any of his ideas down. Plato took it upon himself to immortalise his master in his own work. For this reason, we do not know how much of the ideas in Plato's work belongs to Socrates and how much to Plato, but this is not hugely important.

okay now I can make a crazy theory that Socrates doesnt exist and is infact a figment of Plato's imagination :p
My theory hasnt been falsified yet :p

What is important are the works themselves. A good one to start off with might be the Symposium, which is a philosophical discussion about love. The best of Plato's works is the Republic, which is a wide ranging discussion based around the question of "what is justice?"

Thanks for the links :)

Plato is often regarded as being one of the most pleasant philosophers to read. There is a fair amount of humour in his work, and most of all, there is the character of Socrates. He is probably the most intelligent character I have come across in all literature, and it is impossible not to be in awe of him him as you read the dialogues.

What about William Shakespeare? :?

Hopefully something in this rather long and rambling post of mine will have caught your interest. Let me know if you're going to start reading some philosophy, and I'll help out if needed (and if I can, of course!).

Alot has caught my interest and created many inquiries
I apologize for the massive amount of questions I have posted

Thank You

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

So does that mean the Church taught its students about Aristotle's ideas all the way to the 19th century, including his ideas about everything coming from our senses?

The Church was dominant in the Middle Ages, so at that time it had control over what kind of education the masses would receive. (As it happened, not many people had the privilege of being educated, so the majority simply had to listen to the educate authorities.) During the Renaissance this position started to change, and the Church's influence waned. The idea of the 'free-thinker' began to arise.

Aristotle's view on knowledge deriving from the senses (empiricism) was very popular among philosophers during the 18th century, but it underwent subtle modifications. By this time the Church was still an influence on mainstream education, but not to the extent that it had been. Pure academics were largely free to speculate as they wished, especially in more liberal countries like France.

I mentioned the 19th century in relation to the refutation of Aristotle's logic. His logic would have been taught in schools until then, but the Church by then was not responsible for the content of educational programmes.

I didnt know that Plato was older than Aristotle, all these years I thought they were school buddies :p

I'm sure they were great friends, but, yes, Plato was older than Aristotle.

Im actually interested in their ideas more than their history

The best place to get their ideas is straight from their works!

If Socrates is the most legendary philosopher of all time, did his ideas and views affect history and the way we live today? :?

Absolutely. The 'Socratic Method' of education is something used every day by teachers all over the world (usually without realising it). Here's how it works:

Socrates would gather his students and they would decide on a topic for discussion. Normally it was something that naturally arose from their lives. Socrates' favourite topics were abstract ideas that we all take for granted, like happiness, goodness, justice and truth. He would then check to see if everyone understood the terms, getting his students to give him simple examples. What he did next was the clever bit. He would indicate that he himself had difficulty understanding the concept. At this point his pupils would usually think he was mad, and they would give him more examples. Socrates would then question them sceptically, showing his students that their examples were incoherent or self-contradictory, until gradually everyone would realise that they didn't understand the concept nearly as well as they had assumed. They would eventually have to rebuild their understanding of it, and settle on a compromised definition of the original concept, and everyone would go away with a new and deeper understanding of its intricacies.

This method is so useful for teaching, because it gives the teacher a clear understanding at every stage of where their pupils' learning is at. When I'm teaching English, and I want a student to know how to write persuasively, or how to use apostrophes correctly, one of the best ways to do that is through a method known as 'test-teach-test'. I ask questions to assess what the students know now, I then explain the concept to them, then I ask them to explain it back to me. During that second 'test' period, I will question them with examples and different situations to ensure that they can work the concept by themselves. This method is a direct descendant of that used by Socrates.

okay now I can make a crazy theory that Socrates doesnt exist and is infact a figment of Plato's imagination :p
My theory hasnt been falsified yet :p

:)

Here goes!:

He's mentioned not only in the works of Plato, but also in works by Aristotle, Aristophanes and Xenophon, and several others. You can find details of them on this page.

He was also famously sentenced to death by the Athenian authorities, as trial documents and witnesses show. Here's why:

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian Empire to its decline after its defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens was seeking to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public court was induced by three leading public figures to try Socrates for impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens. This was a time in culture when the Greeks thought of gods and goddesses as being associated with protecting particular cities. Athens, for instance, is named after its protecting goddess Athena. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War was interpreted as Athena judging the city for not being pious. Enter Socrates, who was perceived as questioning the gods, and in light of the recent war, it was all too easy to ascribe defeat to impiety rather than incompetence. The last thing Athens needed was more punishment from Athena for one man inciting its citizens to question her or the other gods. In the Apology, Socrates insists that this is a false charge.

According to the version of his defense speech presented in Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded negatively. Socrates, interpreting this as a riddle, set out to find men who were wiser than he was. He questioned the men of Athens about their knowledge of good, beauty, and virtue. Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing. Socrates' superior intellect made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing.

Despite Socrates' brilliant and moving defense speech, he was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death by drinking a cup of hemlock.

According to Xenophon and Plato, Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to bribe the prison guards. After escaping, Socrates would have had to flee from Athens. As the dialogue Crito makes clear, Socrates refused to escape even in order to evade the execution of his death sentence. Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury.

What about William Shakespeare? :?

The cleverest characters in Shakespeare are probably Hamlet, Iago, Falstaff, Ulysses and possibly Cleopatra, but, in my view, Socrates beats them all. Whether Socrates was cleverer than Shakespeare is a different question - they both clearly had phenomenal minds. If you're interested, my top five geniuses of all time would include these two together with David Hume, Karl Marx and James Joyce. That's excluding the scientists, anyway...

Alot has caught my interest and created many inquiries

Great! If you find these ideas interesting, I'd recommend getting hold of an encyclopedia of philosophy - the Oxford edition edited by Ted Honderich is very good. Or of course there's always wikipedia right here on the net, and it's absolutely free!

I apologize for the massive amount of questions I have posted

No problem - it's a pleasure.

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi thanks for answering all the questions :)

I have one more question thought before we move on to another philosophical question

how were people to drink hemlock when they know they will die if they do?

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Hi thanks for answering all the questions :)

I have one more question thought before we move on to another philosophical question

how were people to drink hemlock when they know they will die if they do?

This kind of punishment was common in ancient Greece and Rome. The authorities thought that rather than simply killing criminals it was better to force them to commit suicide. The authorities felt less guilty that way. Socrates would have known that if he had refused to drink the hemlock he could have been executed in a far more painful way.

I'm enjoying our discussion here very much. It's always good to meet someone who's interested in these matters. :)

For the next question, I would suggest you either look for a particular philosophical question of your choice that you'd like to discuss, or you could choose one of the ones I've already mentioned, or I could think of another one for you - it's up to you...

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi Czgibson,

This kind of punishment was common in ancient Greece and Rome. The authorities thought that rather than simply killing criminals it was better to force them to commit suicide. The authorities felt less guilty that way. Socrates would have known that if he had refused to drink the hemlock he could have been executed in a far more painful way.

Socrates was smart, did he have any kids?

I'm enjoying our discussion here very much. It's always good to meet someone who's interested in these matters. :)

Which matters are we talking about here? Philosophy or Philosophers? :?
im interested in both but mostly fallacies :p

For the next question, I would suggest you either look for a particular philosophical question of your choice that you'd like to discuss, or you could choose one of the ones I've already mentioned, or I could think of another one for you - it's up to you...

well if its alright with you then I would like questions with yes or no answers since its much easier, for example the tautology question :)
or maybe questions with multiple choice such as :

Did Socrates drink hemlock to die or did he die from eating his Dad's cooked food :p

:)

[Knut Hamsun]

Great posts, czgibson--
you are an excellent "explainer"/teacher. I am enjoying reading this exchange.
yours,
Knut Hamsun
ps--
good catch on the name!!! His "Hunger" and "The Growth of the Soil" are 2 of my all time favorite books. And yes, I know about his collaboration in WWII, etc...not a good thing--Only that I think art can be separated from the artist!
(ie I am not a Nazi-sympathizer!! :D )

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Socrates was smart, did he have any kids?

He had three children by his wife Xanthippe according to the wikipedia article. She is famous for being an absolute nightmare due to her nagging, but we only have Xenophon's word for that. Their children didn't become famous philosophers or anything, so far as I know.

Which matters are we talking about here? Philosophy or Philosophers? :?
im interested in both but mostly fallacies :p

We're talking about both, really. It's hard not to...

Here's a page on fallacies and also one on paradoxes, which you might also find interesting. I'd (again) recommend Jamie Whyte's Bad Thoughts as a good book on fallacies. It's certainly the best one I've read on the subject.

well if its alright with you then I would like questions with yes or no answers since its much easier, for example the tautology question :)

You'll find that there aren't many yes / no questions in philosophy!

or maybe questions with multiple choice such as :

Did Socrates drink hemlock to die or did he die from eating his Dad's cooked food :p

:)

Hmmmm.... :)

On this page you can read Socrates' defence speech, as reported by Plato:

The Last Days of Socrates

It's one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever read. Enjoy!

Greeting Knut,

Great posts, czgibson--
you are an excellent "explainer"/teacher. I am enjoying reading this exchange.
yours,
Knut Hamsun

Why, thank you!

ps--
good catch on the name!!! His "Hunger" and "The Growth of the Soil" are 2 of my all time favorite books. And yes, I know about his collaboration in WWII, etc...not a good thing--Only that I think art can be separated from the artist!
(ie I am not a Nazi-sympathizer!! )

I read 'Hunger' a few years ago. I can't remember too many details about it except that I enjoyed the writing's hallucinatory power. On the point about collaboration, I know what you mean and I agree entirely - as it happens I'm teaching a lesson on Ezra Pound tomorrow!

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi,

You'll find that there aren't many yes / no questions in philosophy!

ok in that case any question thats not too complicated will do :)

On this page you can read Socrates' defence speech, as reported by Plato:

The Last Days of Socrates

It's one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever read. Enjoy!

I read it and I didnt understand much but the ending was nice :)
Im curious now though
im sure he lived earlier than shakepere but then how come his english is better then shakespeare? :?

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

I read it and I didnt understand much but the ending was nice :)
Im curious now though
im sure he lived earlier than shakepere but then how come his english is better then shakespeare? :?

He lived much earlier than Shakespeare. Socrates lived from about 469-399 BCE, while Shakespeare lived from 1564-1616.

What do you mean "his English is better than Shakespeare"? Nobody's English is better than Shakespeare's! He practically invented the language we speak today! Here is a list of phrases created by Shakespeare that are still in use by English speakers today:

Phrases from Shakespeare

Here is a list of some of the words invented by Shakespeare (there are lots of others, too). Again, most of these are still in use today:

Shakespearean Coinages

Imagine how different the language would be without all of those!

OK, that's the end of my English teacher rant-mode.

I suppose what you mean is that the text you've read is easier to understand than Shakespeare's writings. The simple reason for this is that Socrates' speech was written down by Plato in Greek, and what you have read is a modern translation into English.

For your next question to think about, I'd like you to have a look at the page on fallacies that I linked to above, choose a few of them and then give me your own examples of arguments that make those mistakes. That should get them clear in your mind, then you'll know what to look for when you're having debates with people.

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi,
that was a long interesting fact filled post about english and the origins of modern english so thank you for explaining it to me :)

now back to philosophy :p

For your next question to think about, I'd like you to have a look at the page on fallacies that I linked to above, choose a few of them and then give me your own examples of arguments that make those mistakes. That should get them clear in your mind, then you'll know what to look for when you're having debates with people.

Im not sure what you meant by that part
did u ask me to make my own examples of fallacies and explain them?
if so then ill start with Argumentum ad Hominem :)

ok an example would be:

Batman vs. The riddler

Batman: ... and therefore i have fully refuted your riddles with examples from Aristotle and Davinci

The riddler: OK fine maybe u did refute them with great examples and sources, but your still ugly and your so dumb that you wear your underpants outside your suit. Even though your name is batman, You smell like a goat, no infact u smell like an ugly goat!

The writing in bold is clearly an attack on the individual instead of the subject at hand. What the riddler did was make the subject personal.
What he failed to realize is that his statement didnt place any effect on the debate itself because he hasnt shown any logical arguement against batmans refutation. This fallacy is known as Argumentum ad Hominem which is translated in english as "Argument against the man".

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Hi,
that was a long interesting fact filled post about english and the origins of modern english so thank you for explaining it to me :)

My pleasure. I don't seem to be able to write short posts on this subject!

Im not sure what you meant by that part
did u ask me to make my own examples of fallacies and explain them?

That's right!

if so then ill start with Argumentum ad Hominem :)

Good choice - lots of people make this mistake.

ok an example would be:

Batman vs. The riddler

Batman: ... and therefore i have fully refuted your riddles with examples from Aristotle and Davinci

The riddler: OK fine maybe u did refute them with great examples and sources, but your still ugly and your so dumb that you wear your underpants outside your suit. Even though your name is batman, You smell like a goat, no infact u smell like an ugly goat!

The writing in bold is clearly an attack on the individual instead of the subject at hand. What the riddler did was make the subject personal.
What he failed to realize is that his statement didnt place any effect on the debate itself because he hasnt shown any logical arguement against batmans refutation. This fallacy is known as Argumentum ad Hominem which is translated in english as "Argument against the man".

OK, you've almost got it. The Riddler here is not actually committing the ad hominem fallacy, believe it or not. My reason for saying this is that he doesn't use his opinion that Batman is dumb etc. to say that Batman must therefore be wrong - to do that would be committing the fallacy. Instead, he actually admits that his argument has been refuted before giving these insults. An example of the fallacy would be for the Riddler to say "why should I listen to you? You're so stupid that nobody believes anything you say." It's when someone's opinion of a person becomes the reason for criticising their arguments that the ad hominem fallacy has been made.

Interestingly, it can work the other way, too. In the example you've given, Batman does just this: "and therefore i have fully refuted your riddles with examples from Aristotle and Davinci". The implication here is: "I've used arguments from Aristotle and da Vinci; they were both very clever men, so we should believe what they say." As we know, clever men can sometimes be wrong (e.g. Aristotle). Of course, in your example, Batman could well have used convincing arguments from those sources, and he could have used them well, but we don't have that part of the conversation. Equally, he could have used totally irrelevant examples, or he could have used them badly. Since we don't know how he used these arguments or what they were, his statement as it stands is an example of the ad hominem fallacy in reverse, also known as the argument from authority.

To conclude:

Here's another example of the ad hominem fallacy at work:

Hitler was a vegetarian.
Hitler was a very evil man.
Therefore vegetarianism is wrong.

Here's an example of the argument from authority:

Aristotle said that men have more teeth than women.
Aristotle was a very clever man.
Therefore it must be true that men have more teeth than women.

(He did say this, but with a few simple observations he could have found that it's actually false.)

These are some of the most commonly committed fallacies, so it's useful to know about them. I'm sure you'll spot them many times in the future!

Peace

[Shadow]

Hi, its amazing how you solved the question behind my post :)
I myself had no idea that Batman was commiting Appeal to Authority

How do you see through the lines :?
practice? or 6th sense? :p

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Hi, its amazing how you solved the question behind my post :)
I myself had no idea that Batman was commiting Appeal to Authority

How do you see through the lines :?
practice? or 6th sense? :p

Thank you for your kind words. :)

You've asked a good question - I suppose it's all down to practice. I've been reading books since before I could walk and I've had a lot of training in close reading at school and university. After your course I'll bet you'll be reading between the lines as shrewdly as anybody!

Out of interest, what type of course is it you are considering? From what you've learned about philosophy so far do you still think it's a good course for you to do? I do hope so - I expect you'd do well on it.

Peace

[Shadow]

Hello,

Thank you for your kind words. :)

Thank you for your kind teaching :)

You've asked a good question - I suppose it's all down to practice. I've been reading books since before I could walk and I've had a lot of training in close reading at school and university

:eek:
its like you were born to read?

Out of interest, what type of course is it you are considering? From what you've learned about philosophy so far do you still think it's a good course for you to do?

well the course im going to do is the just basics of philosophy
so for the moment im way ahead of my class already ;)
the course after the course im going to take is about metaphysics and other complicated matters i guess
But my course is probably going to be about Fallacies, Paradox stuff and Philosopher biographies