Philosophy or the Love of truth

[Huelague]

Just wanted to open a thread about Philosophy, not related to Turkey only, but in general. I have noticed that Turkey/Turks miss on clearing up and reason , relieved on emotions.

We can discuss all kinds of philosophy questions and problems here. Starting with a first question. Do we have some significant or important philosophers.

What is Philosophy?​

Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. As an academic discipline philosophy is much the same. Those who study philosophy are perpetually engaged in asking, answering, and arguing for their answers to life’s most basic questions. To make such a pursuit more systematic academic philosophy is traditionally divided into major areas of study.

Metaphysics​

At its core the study of metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, of what exists in the world, what it is like, and how it is ordered. In metaphysics philosophers wrestle with such questions as:

• Is there a God?
• What is truth?
• What is a person? What makes a person the same through time?
• Is the world strictly composed of matter?
• Do people have minds? If so, how is the mind related to the body?
• Do people have free wills?
• What is it for one event to cause another?

Epistemology​

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is primarily concerned with what we can know about the world and how we can know it. Typical questions of concern in epistemology are:

• What is knowledge?
• Do we know anything at all?
• How do we know what we know?
• Can we be justified in claiming to know certain things?

Ethics​

The study of ethics often concerns what we ought to do and what it would be best to do. In struggling with this issue, larger questions about what is good and right arise. So, the ethicist attempts to answer such questions as:

• What is good? What makes actions or people good?
• What is right? What makes actions right?
• Is morality objective or subjective?
• How should I treat others?

Logic​

Another important aspect of the study of philosophy is the arguments or reasons given for people’s answers to these questions. To this end philosophers employ logic to study the nature and structure of arguments. Logicians ask such questions as:

• What constitutes "good" or "bad" reasoning?
• How do we determine whether a given piece of reasoning is good or bad?

History of Philosophy​

The study of philosophy involves not only forming one’s own answers to such questions, but also seeking to understand the way in which people have answered such questions in the past. So, a significant part of philosophy is its history, a history of answers and arguments about these very questions. In studying the history of philosophy one explores the ideas of such historical figures as:

Plato	Locke	Marx
Aristotle	Hume	Mill
Aquinas	Kant	Wittgenstein
Descartes	Nietzsche	Sartre

What often motivates the study of philosophy is not merely the answers or arguments themselves but whether or not the arguments are good and the answers are true. Moreover, many of the questions and issues in the various areas of philosophy overlap and in some cases even converge. Thus, philosophical questions arise in almost every discipline. This is why philosophy also encompasses such areas as:

Philosophy of Law	Philosophy of Feminism
Philosophy of Religion	Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Mind	Philosophy of Literature
Political Philosophy	Philosophy of the Arts
Philosophy of History	Philosophy of Language

What is Philosophy? | Department of Philosophy

philosophy.fsu.edu

 

[Anastasius]

I always disliked how some people lift Franz Kafka on a pedestal for his "insightful commentary on the human condition". He has no insightful commentary, every single one of his books is a thinly-veiled self-portrait on how he views himself vis-a-vis the wider society. I always recommend that if people want to read anything by Kafka, that they only bother with The Metamorphosis. It encapsulates basically everything you need to know about Kafka's worldview. Or, if you really want to go for one more, maybe try The Castle. Kafka died before he could finish it, so it was published incomplete - and given what the story is about, it's actually oddly fitting.

 

[mulj]

Philosophy is either extremely useful or danger. i think it is crucial to have developed philosophy scene as that discipline is basically foundation of all knowledge.
Revival of the muslim nations will begin when they took the philosophy torch once taken from west, we have strong foundation and traditions and it is up to us to revive it and cherish it. Good start would be mandatory logic/philosophy classes in high schools in order to equip younger generations with proper tools to critical thinking and defense against all this postmodernist shit which is predominant in public scene and among philosophers, strong response is necessary for the sake of civilization.

 

[TR_123456]

Philosophy is either extremely useful or danger. i think it is crucial to have developed philosophy scene as that discipline is basically foundation of all knowledge.
Revival of the muslim nations will begin when they took the philosophy torch once taken from west, we have strong foundation and traditions and it is up to us to revive it and cherish it. Good start would be mandatory logic/philosophy classes in high schools in order to equip younger generations with proper tools to critical thinking and defense against all this postmodernist shit which is predominant in public scene and among philosophers, strong response is necessary for the sake of civilization.

What kind of an explanation is this?
So,you can question but only in limits?
What do you want to call it?
And how is it ''modernist shit'' when it already exists for more then 2000 years?
You dont make sense man.

 

[mulj]

Try again! Philosophy is all about reasoning. It is the search to find an answer to the question “why”, and not the absolute fact. With this in mind, it goes parallel with the spritual side of any religion, the path of St. Francis, Sufism, etc. That leap you are talking about takes minds invested in concrete evidence, pure scientific data, in other words the search for absolute. Remember, Muslim societies have never been through such an enlightenment (a Muslim Renaissance), so what you say remains to be a utopia, at least for now.

check the "tree" that Huelage posted, you will see that is not all about reasoning, actually reasoning is at the bottom of it and in practical sense tool for concluding processes.
on the second part, i disagree, they were, basically achieved that for couple of hundreds years before what is called "enlightment" on west, and we are witnessing end of that period today exactly because of it because of reductive aspect of their predominant materialistic philosophy and lack of belief in absolute truth, societies can not function without it.

 

[mulj]

What kind of an explanation is this?
So,you can question but only in limits?
What do you want to call it?
And how is it ''modernist shit'' when it already exists for more then 2000 years?
You dont make sense man.

define limits.

modernist shit in sense there is no truth, objective facts, only opinions. we see what that done only in couple of decades to the societies and it will be worse. best example of it is gender theory and policy for example.

 

[Anastasius]

define limits.

modernist shit in sense there is no truth, objective facts, only opinions. we see what that done only in couple of decades to the societies and it will be worse.

So your issue is with the social justice nonsense that plagues America today. I can agree with you there, it's gone too far.

 

[TR_123456]

define limits.

modernist shit in sense there is no truth, objective facts, only opinions.

How do you know there is no truth?
Define truth,who's truth?
Universal truth or the truth of some?
Is there universal truth?

Dont worry,no more questions.

 

[mulj]

So your issue is with the social justice nonsense that plagues America today. I can agree with you there, it's gone too far.

no it is not, i simply acknowledge that as the consequence of tought processes in west, it started with Sartr, Focault,.
thing is that is not gone to far, we are at very beginning,

 

[mulj]

How do you know there is no truth?
Define truth,who's truth?
Universal truth or the truth of some?
Is there universal truth?

Dont worry,no more questions.

I know there is truth, it is inclined in human nature.

objectively verified coherent information would be my simplistic definition of it.

last two questions are debatable, i think that there are universal truths 1+1 is universal truth for example.

why should i worry?

 

[mulj]

You are brainstorming. There is a huge difference between philosophy and rational approach

care to explain difference?

 

[TR_123456]

So your issue is with the social justice nonsense that plagues America today. I can agree with you there, it's gone too far.

Whats going in America has nothing to do with ''postmodernist shit'',its a reaction to an action.
The fundamentalists(Trumpism) caused the reaction of the rest.
The one extreme caused the other extreme which rules out the neutrals,none left.
No more moderates.

 

[mulj]

Perception vs deduction

So, you are in favor of perception i suppose?

 

[TR_123456]

1+1 is universal truth for example.

1+1=3



1 = 1

41 – 40 = 61 – 60

16 + 25 – 40 = 36 + 25 – 60

4² + 5² – 2 * 4 * 5 = 6² + 5² – 2 * 6 * 5

(4 – 5)² = (6 – 5)²

4 – 5 = 6 – 5

4 = 6

2 = 3

1 + 1 = 3…proved

Makes sense?

 

[mulj]

1+1=3



1 = 1

41 – 40 = 61 – 60

16 + 25 – 40 = 36 + 25 – 60

4² + 5² – 2 * 4 * 5 = 6² + 5² – 2 * 6 * 5

(4 – 5)² = (6 – 5)²

4 – 5 = 6 – 5

4 = 6

2 = 3

1 + 1 = 3…proved

Makes sense?

Lets stick to 1+1=3

It is logically possible but not true, hope i do not need to explain why.

 

[mulj]

I have probabily over-simplified the answer;

The outcome of any philosophical process is a personal (largely based on individual perception) answer to the initial question, verified only by other philosophers who have actually brainstormed on this very same topic.

Rational approach is based on accepted norms and solutions, end result is verified by a consensus among scholars and pros in this particular field of study.

I say an open mind should carry no prejudice against either method. After all, a structured mind and multi-lateral thinking can change the perception of an entire people!

I see, no issues with it, exept that is not sufficient for all forms of reasoning, perception has its physical limitations and due that i consider it should follow deductive reasoning, they overlap to much to be exluded mutualy.

 

[Anastasius]

no it is not, i simply acknowledge that as the consequence of tought processes in west, it started with Sartr, Focault,.
thing is that is not gone to far, we are at very beginning,

Neither Sartre nor Foucault held that there is no objective truths, Foucault was quite the opposite actually. Sartre's existentialism may sometimes be mistaken for saying that there is no objective truths but he also did not say that. He simply said that the only meaning human lives have is the one that people give themselves.

Whats going in America has nothing to do with ''postmodernist shit'',its a reaction to an action.
The fundamentalists(Trumpism) caused the reaction of the rest.
The one extreme caused the other extreme which rules out the neutrals,none left.
No more moderates.

Other way around, election of Trump and the rise of the right-wing was more of a reaction to the processes already occurring.

1+1=3



1 = 1

41 – 40 = 61 – 60

16 + 25 – 40 = 36 + 25 – 60

4² + 5² – 2 * 4 * 5 = 6² + 5² – 2 * 6 * 5

(4 – 5)² = (6 – 5)²

4 – 5 = 6 – 5

4 = 6

2 = 3

1 + 1 = 3…proved

Makes sense?

That's just flat-out incorrect mathematics, though. A better example would be Zeno's paradox, which is obviously untrue but you can't actually prove that it is untrue.

 

[TR_123456]

Other way around, election of Trump and the rise of the right-wing was more of a reaction to the processes already occurring.

Not a reaction,just showing itself,coming to the surface,it was always there.
All the real power was and is in their hands.
Election of Obama(black only in skin colour) was the cause of appearance,the only reason why Trump won.
Maybe even Obama was planned by them,who knows.
We can go on and on.

That's just flat-out incorrect mathematics, though. A better example would be Zeno's paradox, which is obviously untrue but you can't actually prove that it is untrue.

Its about making a point,this is one more known.
How many people would have an idea about what Zeno's paradox is?

 

[mulj]

He simply said that the only meaning human lives have is the one that people give

Which imply that there is no objective truth, anyway either they said that explicite or not it is less important then fact that they inspired whole post modernist movement which says exactly this, opinions over facts anytime.

 

[Anastasius]

Not a reaction,just showing itself,coming to the surface,it was always there.
All the real power was and is in their hands.
Election of Obama(black only in skin colour) was the cause of appearance,the only reason why Trump won.
Maybe even Obama was planned by them,who knows.
We can go on and on.

Its about making a point,this is one more known.
How many people would have an idea about what Zeno's paradox is?

It was always there but it wasn't as widespread. Nowhere near it. I've known more than a few generally liberal-minded people that actually supported Trump or became flat-out right-wing because the opposition has gone so utterly freaking insane. And it's only getting worse.

It's one of many 1 + 1 = not-2 tricks that seem impressive at first but are just people screwing with incorrect usage of the equals sign. Charles Dodgson has one too. Zeno's paradox is more fitting because there's nothing logically incorrect about it - and since we are in a philosophy thread, I figured people would know what it is. Or quickly Google it if they need to.