<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: playing the philosophy game</title>
	<atom:link href="http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/11/18/playing-the-philosophy-game/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/11/18/playing-the-philosophy-game/</link>
	<description>exploring science, the strange and the unknown</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Just Al</title>
		<link>http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/11/18/playing-the-philosophy-game/#comment-8024</link>
		<dc:creator>Just Al</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=8695#comment-8024</guid>
		<description>Pierce R. Butler, I would argue with you to great length over your post, except that I think we&#039;d be dancing over that ephemeral line into philosophy itself, which is an irony in which I don&#039;t feel like engaging... ;-)

Nevertheless, science and math are offshoots of philosophy? Only if you count them because philosophy was absolutely worthless in providing real answers, and something else was needed. Both of those are empirical, which is one of those few things the various definitions of philosophy specifically exclude.

As for the others, you call them philosophy - I call them imperfect attempts to understand the motivations of human beings, something we hew closer to every day. Ethics is actually fairly simple, as is social criticism - the problem isn&#039;t understanding them, it&#039;s that we think there&#039;s something higher than the individual human being, and all of their personal traits, as the prime motivator. In other words, we&#039;ve been hung up on understanding them precisely because we try to approach them philosophically. Freud, with all of his errors, came closer to answering those fundamental questions than the centuries of philosophers beforehand. We&#039;ve seen  several new studies this year alone that show that various other species, including non-primates, have some form of group-benefit and empathic behavior. Only we then have trouble calling it &quot;ethics,&quot; because that&#039;s our species&#039; domain. Get rid of the labels and assumptions, and we start to see how such they can evolve as beneficial (and yes, physical) traits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pierce R. Butler, I would argue with you to great length over your post, except that I think we&#8217;d be dancing over that ephemeral line into philosophy itself, which is an irony in which I don&#8217;t feel like engaging&#8230; ;-)</p>
<p>Nevertheless, science and math are offshoots of philosophy? Only if you count them because philosophy was absolutely worthless in providing real answers, and something else was needed. Both of those are empirical, which is one of those few things the various definitions of philosophy specifically exclude.</p>
<p>As for the others, you call them philosophy &#8211; I call them imperfect attempts to understand the motivations of human beings, something we hew closer to every day. Ethics is actually fairly simple, as is social criticism &#8211; the problem isn&#8217;t understanding them, it&#8217;s that we think there&#8217;s something higher than the individual human being, and all of their personal traits, as the prime motivator. In other words, we&#8217;ve been hung up on understanding them precisely because we try to approach them philosophically. Freud, with all of his errors, came closer to answering those fundamental questions than the centuries of philosophers beforehand. We&#8217;ve seen  several new studies this year alone that show that various other species, including non-primates, have some form of group-benefit and empathic behavior. Only we then have trouble calling it &#8220;ethics,&#8221; because that&#8217;s our species&#8217; domain. Get rid of the labels and assumptions, and we start to see how such they can evolve as beneficial (and yes, physical) traits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pierce R. Butler</title>
		<link>http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/11/18/playing-the-philosophy-game/#comment-7993</link>
		<dc:creator>Pierce R. Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=8695#comment-7993</guid>
		<description>Philosophy has been of great historical benefit, giving us first math and then science.

More recently it&#039;s spun off theology, which in itself is not useful but has at least finally been put into a box where it&#039;s relatively harmless.

Now - so far as I can tell - the principal activities of philosophers are social criticism (yup, we still need that), the study of ethics (well, of course you &amp; I have that down, but we could sure name a few other people who might benefit...), and epistemology (huh? big word... and how many Weird Things™ would you have left to write about if the populace were a bit more sophisticated in that regard?).

If those three items can be established as independent fields (the 1st is already there), the Philo Depts will be up the ol&#039; creek in that well-known wire mesh canoe without another budding breakthrough. Since these things so far have taken centuries of R&amp;D, they&#039;d better get crackin&#039;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Philosophy has been of great historical benefit, giving us first math and then science.</p>
<p>More recently it&#8217;s spun off theology, which in itself is not useful but has at least finally been put into a box where it&#8217;s relatively harmless.</p>
<p>Now &#8211; so far as I can tell &#8211; the principal activities of philosophers are social criticism (yup, we still need that), the study of ethics (well, of course you &amp; I have that down, but we could sure name a few other people who might benefit&#8230;), and epistemology (huh? big word&#8230; and how many Weird Things™ would you have left to write about if the populace were a bit more sophisticated in that regard?).</p>
<p>If those three items can be established as independent fields (the 1st is already there), the Philo Depts will be up the ol&#8217; creek in that well-known wire mesh canoe without another budding breakthrough. Since these things so far have taken centuries of R&amp;D, they&#8217;d better get crackin&#8217;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dad2059</title>
		<link>http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/11/18/playing-the-philosophy-game/#comment-7984</link>
		<dc:creator>dad2059</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://worldofweirdthings.com/?p=8695#comment-7984</guid>
		<description>Man, you concrete thinking, black and white empiricists know how to spoil a good time! LOL! ;)

Now where did I put my cosmic consciousness?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, you concrete thinking, black and white empiricists know how to spoil a good time! LOL! ;)</p>
<p>Now where did I put my cosmic consciousness?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
