Sartre's Contradiction

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence we are exhorted to turn from our sin, which we do by ceasing from various activities that we know to be sinful and by undertaking others that we know to be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of Sklansky, does this mean he has to stop hanging out in strip bars?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
"It also nullifies the "oughtness" of morality, which basically nullifies morality."

OK fine. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You have both singuraly failed to understand anything I have said. Quite understandable really as what I am trying to convey is complex and contrary to the pedestrian mode of thinking and I am perhaps not that good at conveying it.

It is only in the absence of God that "oughtness" exists indeed is possible.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
If the existence of God somehow implies that life sucks or has no meaning (because, for instance, one thinks it means we are all slaves to him) so what?

If the non existence of God somehow implies that life sucks or has no meaning (because, for instance one thinks that there is no inherent right or wrong without God) so what?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are in a car crash that renders you totaly paralyized and only able to communicate via blinking so what?

The postions I have quoted you saying so what to affect the fundamental nature of your existance far more than said car crash.

You are being disengenous so what?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if Sartre might have just been full of BS.


[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, guys, it's threads such as this that props me up after a bad beat.

I mean, I realize it's not for lack of fishes that I seem to come back empty handed from my fishing sometimes.

...Nothing personal.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm betting that most philosophers could not get a Phd in math, physics or chemistry form a good university even if their life depended on it. Maybe I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are. Flat out wrong, too.

I will not bring up (yet again) the ancient Greeks, who were versed in most sciences of the day. But I will bring up most modern philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, who learned his math from Russell, or Jacques Monod, who was a leading biologist.

If you don't know Monod, read his "Chance and Necessity". If you think he was not a philosopher, you do not know what philosophy is.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus [the philosophers] are making a futile attempt to ascribe meaning to a world without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only recently, after Nietzsche killed Him.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You know, guys, it's threads such as this that props me up after a bad beat.


[/ QUOTE ]


Anything to help a poker bro.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"I agree that most philosophy PhDs couldn't get a PhD from a top University in math or physics, for example. But I also think the following:

(1) most math and physics PhDs couldn't get a PhD from a top philosophy program."

I believe that a much higher percentage of math and physics Phd's could get a a Phd in Philosophy (or almost any other subject for that matter) from a top school than the converse. If I am wrong about this my whole point about philosphers is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to prove this one way or another but I've studied maths, physics and philosophy at degree level and I'd be stunned if any of the PhD philosophers couldn't have got PhDs in maths or physics.

Philosophy, at least at degree level, is way harder than physics or maths and the logical/analytical skills required are pretty much the same.

What special skill do you think are required for maths/physics that philosophers don't need.

chez

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

What special skill do you think are required for maths/physics that philosophers don't need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making sense?

Cheap shot, but seriously, I don't really see the point of asserting that philosophy is harder than math or physics without trying to define what you mean by hard. There's no question that people have very different skill sets and will have varying opinions about what is hard. So what's your metric for assessing hardness?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part philosophy is for people who are not smart enough to tackle tough questions that have indisputable answers. But unlike artists, linguists, etc they want to pretend otherwise. (Exceptions: Descarte, Leibniz, Russell.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not quite sure what this means. Are you saying the study of philosophy is for those who are not smart enough…? If so, then I understand exactly what you mean (then, pardon the rest of this post)and agree.

Didn't read the other posts of yours - -seems that is what you are saying. Can disregard rest of this post.

If you mean philosophers (except the ones noted) are not smart enough to tackle tough questions that have indisputable answers, then I don’t get it. You are correct that they aren’t smart enough: They don’t come up with indisputable answers. But, I don’t necessarily think, because they fail, they aren’t smart people. “Smart enough”, sure, by definition, because they failed to answer their own questions indisputably.

I have yet to find one that has answered any question that makes my life more meaningful. The questions any have answered indisputably are trite in relation to the big questions that, thus far have remained unanswered.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What special skill do you think are required for maths/physics that philosophers don't need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making sense?

Cheap shot, but seriously, I don't really see the point of asserting that philosophy is harder than math or physics without trying to define what you mean by hard. There's no question that people have very different skill sets and will have varying opinions about what is hard. So what's your metric for assessing hardness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on a moh and I'll give you a rigorous answer.

Cheap joke, but seriously relative hardness is tough to be precise about but if you study several topics that require similar skills you get an idea of which are harder in the following sense.

If you have the ability to pass Analysis then you have the ability to pass Algebra. Hence Analysis is harder than Algebra. (At the higher levels they may coverge but at degree level I think exam results would show this to be true)

Purely from my own experience I think that the abilities required for maths, physics and philosphy are much the same
and that anyone who failed maths or physics would also fail philosophy, hence philosophy is as hard or harder than maths/physics.

Obviously I cannot prove this, it would be interesting to know what other who have experience think.

chez