You think too much…
Posted by Gordy | Filed under Geek
The other day I was talking with someone about philosophy. The discussion started because I’d always wanted to hear (from someone who claimed to be a “philosopher”) just what it was.
Well, it’s basically the search for the truth.”
That was what I got. I thought that was interesting because I guess that’s what I expected to get: an open-ended statement which bears no complete answer. The worst part about it is that they often feel it important to constantly jabber on about it. Don’t get me wrong, now. I don’t hate talking about the truth, the search for it, or whatever; I just don’t need to talk about it all the time. I guess it’s like eating one type of food; after a while I’m ready for something else.
My take?
I’m not a philosopher. Well, I guess we all are; but I’m not a philosopher. I can show you a good reason why, too. Take a look at this screen grab from my computer’s Dictionary.
click to see full
With the exception of the forth definition, the whole thing just oozes of differing opinions from people willing to argue about who knows what. This is especially the case in the second one. Notice how it’s set around a “particular” individual. Opinions are like…
The good stuff
I guess I’d just rather talk about something a little more concrete more often. The only problem there is that the things I’d rather talk about are usually too technical for most people. For example, I can’t really think of anyone who has any knowledge of the ZFS filesystem. What about video codecs? Does anyone know how h.264 actually works? I’m also interested in psychoacoustics. Anyone?
You see, I love to talk about tech stuff. There’s nothing better to me than to just geek-out with someone who knows the same feeling. You want to talk about real truth? I just prefer more factual discussion, especially if it’s geeky.
Tags: facts, factual, Geek, opinions, philosophy, tech, technology, truth
February 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Much of philosophy is a waste of time when the premises of their conclusions are assumptions and the conclusions have insufficient premises.
You want something to enjoy and hold on to regarding philosophy read John Locke specifically his essay on human understanding. He goes from basic human understand to the existence of God. You can find his work on the internet. Alexander Campbell was a great philosopher too. See his debate with Robert Owen concerning the truth of Christianity.
God bless.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Here’s something I don’t get. I’ve heard a lot ohf people interested in philosophy make comments about relative truth. The ones I’ve run into seem to, for the most part, reject the idea. The catch is that they’ll also often say that there’s no one way to truth. Do I just not understand them or does that seem backwards?
If relative truth is incorrect, then doesn’t that mean that there’s probably just one? If so, then what happens when a group of people claim to have it? They’ll probably be labeled as arrogant. But what if that one group turned out to be right?
March 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Forgive me for being a month late. I don’t have your feed.
You’re absolutely right about there being one truth and those having it and are confident will certainly be labeled “arrogant” or worse. I think a lot of agnostics are not about not believing in truth, but about obtaining the whole truth which is especially convenient regarding morality and ethics. Philosophically speaking many people have given up on a natural philosophy for right and wrong.
I found a great definition of philosophy. The American founding father, Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, defines “philosophy” as “n. [L. philosophia; Gr. love, to love, and wisdom.]
1. Literally, the love of wisdom. But in modern acceptation, philosophy is a general term denoting an explanation of the reasons of things; or an investigation of the causes of all phenomena both of mind and of matter. When applied to any particular department of knowledge, it denotes the collection of general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject, are comprehended. Thus, that branch of philosophy which treats of God, &c. is called theology; that which treats of nature, is called physics or natural philosophy; that which treats of man is called logic and ethics, or moral philosophy; that which treats of the mind is called intellectual or mental philosophy, or metaphysics.
The objects of philosophy are to ascertain facts or truth, and the causes of things or their phenomena; to enlarge our views of God and his works, and to render our knowledge of both practically useful and subservient to human happiness.
True religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle.
2. Hypothesis or system on which natural effects are explained.
We shall in vain interpret their words by the notions of our philosophy and the doctrines in our schools.
3. Reasoning; argumentation.
4. Course of sciences read in the schools.”
It is essentially the old word for “science”.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Scott. I’ve heard some amazing things about Webster. Apparently, he knew well over 10 languages and contributed over 70,000 entries into his Dictionary.
A question comes to mind after reading that first definition: If philosophy was used back then to mean “science” or something close to that, why then has it become so tied to opinions and what people think. Relative truth is a joke and we all know what opinions are like…
March 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Well, there have been many relative-truth philosophers, who wanted to reject the faith
I can only assume that “philosophy” has changed like “science” has changed to include the conjecture of evolution.
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”