Advertisement

Being philosophical when you really shouldn't - here's your chance!

Started by February 22, 2012 03:54 AM
146 comments, last by jpetrie 12 years, 8 months ago

You hold a degree in Philosophy? Do you have any other degrees?

I have a bachelors in philosophy, another bachelors in computer science, and a masters in computer science.

Why would you go for Philosophy?[/quote]
Where other fields of study are about learning a subject, Philosophy is about learning how to think. It's the perfect complement for a technical degree - keeps the mind limber, and helps stop you falling into the 'when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail' trap, so common among pure science/engineering majors.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]


As human beings, we think of this universe as the one and true universe. Everything we touch, feel, sense, interact with is real. But what happens, when the Matrix happens? Can one really argue that that isn't real?




Everything you think you know is actually composed entirely of varying levels of belief[/quote]

And that's my armchair philosophy done for the day.
Advertisement
I found a study that directly associates right amygdala dominance to men and left amygdala dominance to women.
Let me pre-qualify what I'm about to say by admitting that a) I have never made a formal study of philosophy (other than the anecdote below, which hardly qualifies) and b) having had little interest in the subject, never informally read much on the subject either. So, in short, the following is very likely misinformed bull, and should not be read by anyone.

In my younger years, I took a philosophy introductory class at university. Being possessed of the usual natures of youth (false ego, carefree attitude bordering on rebeliousness), I decided to push the boundaries of what I could get away with. I remember being amazed at the type of completely bogus, off the top of my head, and completely meaningless essays I would submit, and yet not only passing but getting high marks as well. It actually became a challenge as well as personal joke of sorts, and while I was often questioned by the professor on a particular idea or essay, I found I could convince him (and the class) of the viewpoint, no matter how laughable. I am completely open to the possibility that this was completely the fault of a bad teacher (and me being a bad student), though it did tarnish my personal opinion of philosophy. (As an aside, I wish I had kept those essays somewhere, I am sure they would have been great to read through again).

It's my own personal suspicion that philosophy has lost most of its practical value in recent times. As general history, or entertainment, surely it maintains value. But philosophy as a useful tool seems to have been supplanted by actual science, and perhaps the examination of historical data.

The (admittedly small amount of) philosophical writings that I've been exposed to seem to be either logical truths obscured purposely (presumably to induce a false feeling of revelation in the reader, the same trick often used by religious texts) or just plain pseudo-science. In other cases they would present theories in a particularly long-winded fashion, abstract and vague to the point of being conveniently non-testable. Not to say they weren't entertaining, but certainly a bit presumptious with their claims of exposing valuable knowledge.

Once again, it is probably a failing of my own, not having been exposed properly to the subject (and perhaps even lacking an understanding of what 'real' philosophy is).

P.S.: To further add offense to the topic:

PHILOSOPHY, n A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce
[/quote]

Yes, and in light of that most recent post I'd like to refer everyone to my previous comments.


Would you mind giving me some examples where you think my theory has holes? I may be blind to the flaws in my theory and to me this theory is a big deal which explains a lot of things I've wondering.

[quote name='Promit' timestamp='1329941272' post='4915627']
Yes, and in light of that most recent post I'd like to refer everyone to my previous comments.


Would you mind giving me some examples where you think my theory has holes? I may be blind to the flaws in my theory and to me this theory is a big deal which explains a lot of things I've wondering.
[/quote]

I'll regret engaging in this, but...

1. Assuming that better social skills correlates to increased procreation.
2. Assuming that good social skills are passed from parents to children.
3. Assuming that better social skills are related in any way to worse 'science and mathematics skills'
4. Assuming that disinterest in 'deep' discussions indicates some norm where social skills are preferred over 'science and mathematics skills' in the first place.
Advertisement
Aren't 1 and 2.... mostly true though?

3 and 4 are definitely a stretch (and that's being modest).

Beginner in Game Development?  Read here. And read here.

 

I think that Plato is overrated. Whenever he got specific in his ideas he was pretty much always wrong. I feel like the most useful aspect of philosophy is formal logic. Even most famous philosophers based their specific implementation on so many assumptions that its barely a step up from armchair philosophy. Maybe not SDF bad, that is a high bar to clear, but generally overrated.

Aren't 1 and 2.... mostly true though?


I have no idea. I suspect that they're not as true as common knowledge thinks, but that's the point of this part of the discussion isn't it? People using philosophy as an excuse to just go with things.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1329961210' post='4915736']
[quote name='Promit' timestamp='1329941272' post='4915627']
Yes, and in light of that most recent post I'd like to refer everyone to my previous comments.


Would you mind giving me some examples where you think my theory has holes? I may be blind to the flaws in my theory and to me this theory is a big deal which explains a lot of things I've wondering.
[/quote]

I'll regret engaging in this, but...

1. Assuming that better social skills correlates to increased procreation.
2. Assuming that good social skills are passed from parents to children.
3. Assuming that better social skills are related in any way to worse 'science and mathematics skills'
4. Assuming that disinterest in 'deep' discussions indicates some norm where social skills are preferred over 'science and mathematics skills' in the first place.
[/quote]

Honestly, 1 and 2 I don't feel need proving.
As for number 3 I was meaning that the incentive to pursue science and mathematics are not there. However, if they apply themselves they can be just as proficient as someone who is right amygdala dominate and may even develop a positive association with science and mathematics.

With number 4 I think you need to look at it more as right or left handed. When someone has better motor coordination with their right hand they feel more comfortable using it. Someone who is right amygdala dominate will be less interested in social interaction at a young age and as they get older they may see the positive benefits to being social but feel uncomfortable in a social setting since they may sense their own inadequacies. If they apply them self they too can become as proficient as someone who is left amygdala dominate.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement