Philosophy truely sucks.

[TheFaithfulStone]

only arguments that do not undermine that already known to be true.

 

Or at least, only arguments that do not undermine what you already know to be true.

 

I find this strategy of yours of declaring victory and moving on extremely frustrating.

 

TFS

[catholiboy]

That's not philosophy, it's ignorance and it's pointless to argue with the ignorant. Tell that someone to go fly a kite. Real philosophy gives birth to ideas like the scientific method.....

 

Actually, it kind of is philosophy. And don't you think it's in any case better to formulate theories for all possibilities?

[moo]

But the practicle creation and implimentation of human rights doctrine was due to the holocaust and it's immediate aftermath, not the teachings of Aristotle 2000 years earlier.

Interesting. I thought perhaps the Magna Carta might qualify as an earlier example. :warped:

 

moo

[Pyrotex]

...be aware that the is a big difference between a subject being 'interesting' and a subject being 'useful'.....

We are aware of this. It is your awareness that we question. If you are dogmatically hostile to "philosophy" (and the evidence indicates this clearly), then your ability to judge the usefulness of philosophy is called into question. Indeed, if you are able to disregard the tremendous impact that philosophy has had on religion, politics, psychology and the understanding of self-awareness and cognition, then your *intention* in this website is called into question.

 

The evidence is quite clear that philosphy is useful as a tool for refining and enhancing the human ability to THINK. On the other hand, if you can't (or won't) think, then philosphy would be obviously of no use to you.

 

Sebby, are you wasting our time on purpose, or do you just have an incredible knack for it?

[pgrmdave]

Sebby, are you wasting our time on purpose, or do you just have an incredible knack for it?

 

Sebby isn't forcing you to post here - you are posting in this thread of your own free will.

[Pyrotex]

It would appear to me that the very claim laid out in the title of this thread demonstrates a lack of intellect. I cannot imagine the point in discussing such an intellctual subject as philosophy with such an individual.....

C1ay, I totally agree with you. The individual in question not only fails to demonstrate an intellect, but fails to demonstrate even the desire to attain one.

 

This is most clear in his tactics. He continuously avoids the main points, the major arguments, and instead rants on about niggling little details (like the holocaust) that have little or no relevance to the stated topic.

 

In engineering, we do a lot of arguing and debating. But individuals who argue in the fashion above are referred to as "ankle biters". Their purpose is to make others look foolish, not to solve problems--and eventually, they are not invited to the important meetings.

[Pyrotex]

Sebby isn't forcing you to post here - you are posting in this thread of your own free will.

Yes, Captain Obvious.

But the question is rhetorical, not fact-finding. It aims to get Sebby to confront his own intentions.

[Spiked Blood]

We are aware of this. It is your awareness that we question. If you are dogmatically hostile to "philosophy" (and the evidence indicates this clearly), then your ability to judge the usefulness of philosophy is called into question. Indeed, if you are able to disregard the tremendous impact that philosophy has had on religion, politics, psychology and the understanding of self-awareness and cognition, then your *intention* in this website is called into question.

 

The evidence is quite clear that philosphy is useful as a tool for refining and enhancing the human ability to THINK. On the other hand, if you can't (or won't) think, then philosphy would be obviously of no use to you.

 

Sebby, are you wasting our time on purpose, or do you just have an incredible knack for it?

 

Why so hostile?

 

Seems to me the lone defense for philosophy is that it "is useful as a tool for refining and enhancing the human ability to THINK".

 

There are numerous things that "refine and enhance" that aren't held in such high regard as Philosophy.

 

I see Philosophy as a form of exercise. Nothing more than taking your brain for a walk.

[Pyrotex]

Why so hostile?

Seems to me the lone defense for philosophy is that it "is useful as a tool for refining and enhancing the human ability to THINK".

...I see Philosophy as a form of exercise. Nothing more than taking your brain for a walk.

I decline to say I am hostile. I am vexed, as I would be to find a child gnawing on my ankle.

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Especially if they are smarter than I am and their intention is to teach. I had a "philosopher" (on another website years ago) disagree with me on Einstein's "speed of light" law. I have a degree in Physics, and my specialty was Relativity. I KNEW what I was talking about!!! :D But this philosopher, without sarcasm, without misdirection, with flawless logic, and with perfect patience parried every thrust I could make. Finally in frustration, I went to a pair of Relativity books on my shelf and dug. I dug harder than even I did in graduate school.

 

And he was right!! And I understood relativity for the first time!! That philosopher is one of my best friends to this day; because he was patient and had a higher purpose (my enlightenment). And I am one of his; because I was willing to listen and do the hard thinking.

 

Sebby's intentions are manifest in his tactics. He has no concern for my enlightenment, or yours, or even his own. His hit-and-run logic is at best annoying and adolescent. I stick around not to engage him in philosophy (he is waaaay not ready for that) but to engage him in meta-reasoning: conversations about reasoning and logic, and when an argument is neither. Sebby thinks that his intentions are opaque, his own little secret. I want Sebby to know that his intentions are transparent -- clearly communicated in his tactics. My contribution to Sebby (if successful) will be that he begins to understand that there is a much better (and more mature) way of engaging in rhetoric--that is not only more FUN, but more USEFUL as well.

 

And if Sebby declines to see this, well then, he WINS, doesn't he? ;)

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL :cup:

[TheFaithfulStone]

flame (flm)

n.

...

 

6. Informal An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network.

 

v. flamed, flam·ing, flames

v.intr.

 

...

 

3. Informal To make insulting criticisms or remarks, as on a computer network, to incite anger.

v.tr.

...

2. Informal To insult or criticize provokingly, as on a computer network.

 

What now? Where did I flame you?

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

TFS - Sebby posted that in response to a post by C1ay, he was using your definitions of flame to point out that C1ay's post was an attack on Sebby, and could be considered a flame that would be inteneded to bait Sebby. He wasn't claiming that you flamed him.

[sebbysteiny]

Hi all,

 

Firstly, I just wanted to remind people that the main reason I say why 'philosophy truly sucks' is because it undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it.

 

From a specific angle I agree with Sebby on this. I find it ultimately frustrating when trying to debate an issue that has a foundation in physical measureable repeatable facts when someone comes in and tries undermining it on the basis of reality being just a perception, and we have no way of knowing that anything is truely real.

 

AAAAAA!!!!!! If I had any hair left I would rip it out!

 

Using "philosophy" to deny the existance of reality that you do not want to agree with is no way to push forward knowledge of the real world.

 

The BigDog, in this excellently expressed post, has really hit the nail on the head. QP.

 

And now for the soap opera of C1ay's position on the nature of this thread.

 

Having first attacked my intellect and stating that

I cannot imagine the point in discussing such an intellctual subject as philosophy with such an individual.....

 

he has done a complete 180 not only by making yet another contibution but by actually acknowledging and agreeing with the thesis of this thread by saying that the correct response to a philosopher making the kind of comments I have criticised is to

 

Tell that someone to go fly a kite.

 

However, C1ay has insisted that the philosophical reasoning demonstrated by TheBigDog is not actually philosophy but he has created a new accademic subject called 'ignorance' to put the quite significant parts of philosphy that I have been complaining about.

 

That's not philosophy, it's ignorance and it's pointless to argue with the ignorant.

 

Personally, I think that's a little harsh. Whist I, like TheBigDog, do find large parts, possibly even all parts, of philosophy frustrating in that they undermine knowledge rather than contribute to it, I think creating a separate accademic subject is harsh especially because I in no way am disputing the enormous intellectual abilities required for philosophy.

 

 

 

Kriminal99 put forward his arguments on the apparent limits of induction which I suspect C1ay will admit should belong to philosphy.

 

Catholiboy seems to agree. When commenting on the arguments C1ay believes should be moved from philosphy to ignorance said

 

Actually, it kind of is philosophy.

 

Moving truely into the depths of philsophy, Kriminal99 put forward a challenge on the limits of induction.

 

To begin with, if something has proven true a million times, it still is not evidence it will continue to prove true in the future because there is no gaurantee that the past was randomly sampled from the same population as the future, or in other words something could change that you don't know about that alters future outcomes.

 

This was in response to me challenging Kriminal99's claim that

 

The only knowledge a human being is capable of having is the absence of that which contradicts what he already believes.

 

Before, helpfully concluding entirely through that reasoning that

 

There is no such thing as fact or proof.

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but how is this different to

I find it ultimately frustrating when trying to debate an issue that has a foundation in physical measureable repeatable facts when someone comes in and tries undermining it on the basis of reality being just a perception, and we have no way of knowing that anything is truely real.

?

 

Clearly trying to grapple with the subtle disinctions necessary to answer this quesion, MichealAngelica pointed out that

 

My brain hurts

 

Just another day in the life of Hypography members finding truth.

 

 

 

Right, now to address the issues.

 

But the practicle creation and implimentation of human rights doctrine was due to the holocaust and it's immediate aftermath, not the teachings of Aristotle 2000 years earlier.

Interesting. I thought perhaps the Magna Carta might qualify as an earlier example.

 

The Magna Carta may have helped improve human rights of the wealthy lords, but not as an aim. There was no part of the document that said that every human has certain rights and that it is the obligation of the state to secure those rights for its civilians.

 

But is this a tangent?

 

The thrust of what I was saying is that no philosphy is needed to create the very best systems of government. When you see suffering in your back yard, you need only be a human, and not a philosopher to know that you must alleviate it. From this, the doctrine of human rights can be established although it did take something as horrific as the holocaust to solidify it into a clear and established doctrine rather than the previous and more foggy discription of 'alleviating suffering'. But yes, the principal of eleviating suffering goes back before the unanimous acceptance of the doctrine of human rights.

 

From the doctrine of human rights one gets modern liberal democracies.

 

So where is the philosophy? How has philosophy helped in this process? Don't ask me, they are rhetorical questions!!!

 

only arguments that do not undermine that already known to be true.

 

Or at least, only arguments that do not undermine what you already know to be true.

 

I find this strategy of yours of declaring victory and moving on extremely frustrating.

 

Strawman.

 

I was only referring to 'arguments known [by humanity] to be true', not opinions personally believed by me.

 

Arguments like, gravity acts to draw objects to the centre of the Earth or that 9/11 was caused by Al Quaeda flying planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. I am not talking about my opinions like the fact that I am the most fly and most attractive person on Earth possibly even gods gift to women and that Islamic Terror is caused by hypnotic suggestions contained within the discourse, the latter being a subject whose uncertainties I have been discussing in another thread :cup:.

 

Shall we agree that I am the winner of this little dispute? Good. Lets move on.

 

Right, now for Kriminal99's beast.

 

Firstly, remember, I am not trying to get into philosophical arguments of truth etc. Such topics are only relevant under this thread where they go on to help establish the utility of the philosophical method, not it's interest or intellectual correctness.

 

Yes it could fall upwards

Trying to undermine all human knowledge by saying that a vertual certainty is not a perfect certainty does not help put food on that poor single mother's table who we talked about earlier in this thread. Quite the opposite, it actively prevents us from using virtual certainties such as the scientific method to better the lives of those people.

 

And I am not just talking about theoretically and intellectually. In practice, bible bashers have been using those very philosophical arguments to undermine science at every turn. I know as I have attended one such session. And the process of the actual destruction of reason and knowledge using unhelpful but correct philosphical arguments does not stop there.

 

Now, dealing with your attack against induction.

 

This hasty generalization fallacy you speak of does not address skepticism or the limits of induction.

 

The analysis of the Hasty generalisation fallacy is crucial to the debate on induction.

 

You are saying that simply because a number of events have been seen it does not follow that those events will continue to be seen so induction is not a valid and reliable logical tool. This is identical to saying that simply because a number of events have been seen, it is illogical to make a generalisation.

 

But, if you look at the logical fallacy, a generalisation can be logical. A generalisation is only illogical if it is made from too little data, ie it is 'hasty' hence the logical fallacy of 'hasty generalisation'. However, if the generalisation is not hasty and is infact so well established that it becomes a virtual certainty, then even though it is not a perfect certainty, it is still logically valid.

 

So I dont see any purpose or use whatsoever in concluding that simply because all information we have seen must have come from induction, it therefore follows that it is reasonable to question it's correctness. Or most importantly, it serves no purpose and will not help feed the kids of that poor single women who we all know and love.

 

Results of better understanding of skepticism

 

Here you moved right back to the thrust of this debate by proposing alleged uses of challenging induction.

 

You first say that knowledge of the limitation of induction will help improve people's behavior. You list susceptability to media influences and the use of the strawman fallacy as examples.

 

In particular, you cite the ability to 'question surroundings' as 1) dependant on understanding the limits of induction, and 2) the cause of people rebelling against Nazi tyranny.

 

Lastly you cited an example of a man so blinded to reason he actually physically blocked his ears.

 

All the above are alleged uses of philosophy, but all of them are not in my opinion caused by the ability to challenge at the philosophical level the nature of induction and the distinction between a virtual certainty and a pefect one.

 

For interprettation of media information, it is wrong to discount it on the grounds of induction. The Hasty Generalisation fallacy is sufficient to discount badly put forward media. If a hasty generalisation is made, then the statistics are sufficient to expose the fallacy.

 

Yes, one swallow does not a summer make. But there must come a point where so many swallows fly past your house that you might, nay, must say to yourself, 'summer is here'. A refusal to accept such facts despite the overwhelming evidence simply on the grounds that you question the correctness of induction will help noone and will certainly not make people more rational. All it will mean is that nobody is willing to form any conclusions about anything. Genocides could happen in Sudan and thanks to their philosophical knowledge, they will say that it may not be an organised genocide and could easily be 2,000,000 accidents all happening in a month.

 

This line of reasoning destroys knowledge rather than contributes to it in my opinion.

 

And the Nazi stuff is just wrong. Those who played a part in the final solution knew they were committing a crime, hence the secracy and the large amounts of shredded documents and destroyed buildings left by the regime.

 

No it does not destroy knowledge

 

Only by always keeping an open mind and looking for information that might contradict what you believe can you claim to have knowledge of anything.

.

 

This is a squirrel [so obviously true as to be unarguable]. But this does not follow from the philosophical debate on induction. New discoveries often arise thanks to the production of data that did not fit other models. With your criticisms on induction, one has to ask the point of finding new information since: there may be even more information undermining everything you have learnt with the new information; and you can't be sure you observed the new information in the first place.

 

Coherentism revisited

Still don't quite understand it. But before we go any deeper, what purpose does it have to the world as a whole that merits it being discussed here?

 

You dirty philosopher you!

Are they?

 

A) Your ideas are only simple and practical to you because they are yours. Occam's razor does not allow you to eliminate all opposing beliefs simply because they are not yours.

 

Really? You see I was under the understanding that everybody here believes that a government's job is to preserve human rights! Does anybody here believe that human rights should not be respected by a government? I would seriously doubt it.

 

Of course, some apparent human rights activists gives human rights a bad name. They argue correctly, for example, that freedom from torture is a human right and that therefore governments must not torture. However a right to life is also a human right and if torture would help save people's lives, then it does not follow that a government must ban torture altogether simply because of human rights. However all people with human rights knowledge agree that arbitary torture perhaps for the purpose of 'extracting confessions' is completely contrary to human rights. Thus Saddam's is not compatible with human rights at all even if George Bush's America may be. The debate rages on.

 

But we all agree on one thing: human rights of all people must be respected wherever possible. It's not philosphy. It's a statement of fact that everybody wants a society that respects rather than infringes upon their human rights.

 

:D Your ideas are no less philosophical than anyone else's. How is maximizing human rights any more simple or practical than giving the most amount of people the most amount of happiness?

 

My argument is that when you see suffering, it is a practical necessity to try and end it. As long as the victims are perceived equal's it's imbuilt into our DNA. Hence human rights. Hence liberal democracy. It is not a practical necessity to make a happy kid happier or anything else.

 

C) The only way someone living in Nazi Germany, with everything around them seeming to indicate that the Nazi way is the right way (shows with airplanes flying over head and crowds going wild etc) is by a very clear understanding of the limitations of induction.

 

I think a simple knowledge of brain washing and the 'social alter' [see previous thread on brainwashing] is suffice.

 

Another forum for philosophy haters

 

I'm not a philsophy hater. I quite like it. I just think it has no practical use whatsoever and only serves to undermine knowledge rather than contribute to it.

 

I rather like Hypography so I will stay here until I am banned [which actually may not be that far away. My independant attitude is causing quite a debate amongst the moderators behind the scenes. Still, I hope reason will win out in the end ;)].

 

But the jury is still out. If somebody can put forward a use to some part of philosophy, I can be convinced that it is only mostly useless. And if somebody shows a great deal of use for philosophy including 'logic' then I will gladly replace my thesis that

 

Philosophy truly sucks

 

with

 

Philosphy truly rules.

[ughaibu]

Presumably a philosopher will need to employ logic in order to convince you to replace your thesis. There you have it, a use for logic.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The thrust of what I was saying is that no philosphy is needed to create the very best systems of government. When you see suffering in your back yard, you need only be a human, and not a philosopher to know that you must alleviate it. From this, the doctrine of human rights can be established although it did take something as horrific as the holocaust to solidify it into a clear and established doctrine rather than the previous and more foggy discription of 'alleviating suffering'. But yes, the principal of eleviating suffering goes back before the unanimous acceptance of the doctrine of human rights.

I was only referring to 'arguments known [by humanity] to be true', not opinions personally believed by me.

 

Arguments like, gravity acts to draw objects to the centre of the Earth or that 9/11 was caused by Al Quaeda flying planes into the twin towers and the pentagon.

 

You could find people who would disagree with ALL of those. Exactly what I mean by "declare victory and move on."

 

From the doctrine of human rights one gets modern liberal democracies.

 

So where is the philosophy? How has philosophy helped in this process? Don't ask me, they are rhetorical questions!!!

 

The philosophy of John Rawls, which I pointed you to earlier. His work is an excellent explanation of why liberalism (and human rights) are both necessary and desirable.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

What now? Where did I flame you?

 

TFS

 

This deserves a post on it's own.

 

I looked up in google for a definition of 'flame' and I found one in 'The Free Dictionary.

 

I meant to put in TFD. :D Ooops, lol. I'll edit it.

 

Nothing to do with you, good old respectible The Faithful Stone. And, since it's you, I'll even though in a quality point for good will :cup:.

[sebbysteiny]

Presumably a philosopher will need to employ logic in order to convince you to replace your thesis. There you have it, a use for logic.

 

Hmmm, this isn't quite what I meant. I meant philosophical logic whereby arguments are broken down into pseudo mathematical equations rather than simply induction and deduction.

 

As yet, nobody has used anything that one learns in the 2 terms of logic classes in Philosophy at Oxford.

 

Arguments like, gravity acts to draw objects to the centre of the Earth or that 9/11 was caused by Al Quaeda flying planes into the twin towers and the pentagon

 

You could find people who would disagree with ALL of those.

 

Yes you could. But they are all wrong. Not a single part of anything they say stands up to scientific and other intellectual scrutiny. But the type of people that think like those won't let trivial little things like that stand in the way of their warped views.

 

The philosophy of John Rawls, which I pointed you to earlier. His work is an excellent explanation of why liberalism (and human rights) are both necessary and desirable.

 

I accept that human rights are discussed in philosphy and I accept (or have even hinged some of my arguments on) that human rights are useful.

 

But the question I have disputed is whether philosophy or practical necessity is responsible for the acceptance of human rights doctrine.

 

My argument is that when you see suffering, it is a practical necessity to try and end it. As long as the victims are perceived equal's it's imbuilt into our DNA. Hence human rights. Hence liberal democracy.

 

Okay, we have a new potential flamer in the name of Pyrotex. It's a shame, Pyrotex, I did expect more from you considering your contributions in other threads. I'll wait for one more flaming post before I neg rep. Until then, I'll simply answer the points you raise.

 

It is your awareness that we question. If you are dogmatically hostile to "philosophy" (and the evidence indicates this clearly), then your ability to judge the usefulness of philosophy is called into question.

 

But the jury is still out. If somebody can put forward a use to some part of philosophy, I can be convinced that it is only mostly useless. And if somebody shows a great deal of use for philosophy including 'logic' then I will gladly replace my thesis that [Philsophy truly sucks with Philosophy truly rules].

 

Indeed, if you are able to disregard the tremendous impact that philosophy has had on religion, politics, psychology and the understanding of self-awareness and cognition, then your *intention* in this website is called into question.

 

All you need to do is demonstrate that philosophy had such an impact in any of those areas. I agree that originally, all these areas were included within Philosophy, but once they split, philosophy can no longer claim any rewards for achievements achieved by them unless there was some direct causual relationship between teachings in the philosophy classrooms and the achievements in another discipline.

 

Eg psychology is now a science. I cannot see any room for input of a philosophical nature.

 

if it isn't tought in a pure philosophy class today at Oxford or any other University, it ain't philosophy.

 

The idea that some pompous git in his confortable armchair discussing "what is the nature of the phrase 'the nature of'" can claim any credit for the discovery of the cure to small pox is verging on the barbaric.

 

The ultimate question really comes down to whether or not it is worth funding philosophy departments at all. I havn't gone that far though as the jury is still out.

 

The evidence is quite clear that philosphy is useful as a tool for refining and enhancing the human ability to THINK. On the other hand, if you can't (or won't) think, then philosphy would be obviously of no use to you.

 

You may not know this, but this is actually a completely new argument.

 

I accept that part of studying at university is to teach people a methodology of thought that has practical applications. Such a link is potentially strong enough to merit changing my thesis that "Philosophy truly sucks".

 

The only problem is that ALL academic disciplines give people an ability to THINK. So, unless there is something *unique* about philsophy either in it's direct practical applications, or in the applications of the philosophical method to solving real life problems.

 

And much of philosophical reasoning seems to undermine knowledge rather than contribute to it. It's not just me here, others here agree.

 

It seems to me that we have reached a consensus here that philosophical reasoning is not without it's flaws. Even C1ay's posts illustrated that the difference between 'ignorance' and 'philosophy' is not always obvious.

 

The question yet to be answered is whether it also has it's benefits.

 

Sebby, are you wasting our time on purpose, or do you just have an incredible knack for it?

 

Compition. How many logical fallacies can you see in this sentence? I count 4.

 

He continuously avoids the main points, the major arguments, and instead rants on about niggling little details (like the holocaust) that have little or no relevance to the stated topic.

 

I'm so outnumbered that I can't have time to respond to every point made and although I try to rebutt the main thesis of most of your posts, sometimes I might miss it or be unable to reply for want of time.

 

I will also add that the 'rants' on the holocaust are fundamental here.

 

Kriminal99 posed a significant attack on my argument. He pointed out that philosophical arguments may have inspired better societies, which is a real and undeniable practical use.

 

My only defence is that

when you see suffering, it is a practical necessity to try and end it.

 

Therefore, human rights doctrine arrived independantly from philosophy. And since the 'practical necessessity' was made unavoidably obvious by the holocaust, rants on the holocaust are very relevant to defending the most critical attack.

 

If you don't see the relevance, that's not my issue. Nobody's forcing you to read.

 

If my argument does not survive this forum, which I concede it might not, then I will happily make the concession.

 

Sebby's intentions are manifest in his tactics. He has no concern for my enlightenment, or yours, or even his own. His hit-and-run logic is at best annoying and adolescent.

 

The question here is, what practical use does philosophy have? It purely in the pursuit of truth. Getting angry about this helps nobody.

 

I'm beginning to think that it is impossible to challenge a sacred cow without getting flamed by irrational anger.

 

But thanks for describing my posts as logical :). I'd love to know what 'hit and run' logic really is though.

 

I want Sebby to know that his intentions are transparent -- clearly communicated in his tactics. My contribution to Sebby (if successful) will be that he begins to understand that there is a much better (and more mature) way of engaging in rhetoric--that is not only more FUN, but more USEFUL as well.

 

Thank you for your advice. I always appriciate suggestions as to how I can get on better with people and I will be sure to take your criticisms on the chin and ammend my behavior accordingly .......

that is if I can understand what the hell you are talking about :).

 

Sebby isn't forcing you to post here - you are posting in this thread of your own free will.

 

Yes, Captain Obvious.

 

Sometimes it is the most obvious suggestions that are the most insightful.

 

And QP for pgrmdave for his diplomacy.

[Pyrotex]

...Firstly, I just wanted to remind people that the main reason I say why 'philosophy truly sucks' is because it undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it....

Wrong on several counts.

 

Assertion: "philosophy undermines knowledge" is FALSE. You cannot show a single instance of this.

 

Assertion: "philosophy doesn't contribute to knowledge" is FALSE. Your denial of the historical record may reflect an ignorance of history. That would be the kindest interpretation.

 

Assertion: "the reason I say 'philosophy sucks' is because..." is also FALSE. You have a reason I'm sure, for hosting this thread, but the given reasons aren't it. It would appear that you are dissembling.

 

So, I have several straight questions for you:

 

What personal experience have you had with philosophy?

Did you ever take a course in it?

Did you flunk out?

Or is your attitude toward philosophy second-hand?