milskidasith said:
That exact one.
I don't get the point of philosophical debates like that. If the most obvious response to the question is somehow wrong because it's not philosophical enough, it's a stupid question and really not worth the time examining it, because it probably has no relevance to real life when answered on a philosophical level.
That comic came off in a different light to me, it seemed as if it highlighted the unwillingness or inability of those from more "practical" doctrines, to condescend to thought experiments. Despite the fact that Einstein himself used such theoretical propositions to stimulate discussion, many people simply refuse to remain within the constraints of the hypothetical situation.
For example: In the comic, the question; "So... If a perfect duplicate of you is made, can you ever define in a meaningful sense which is the clone and which the original?" Cannot simply be answered by saying, the clone is the one that came after. This is because, as the clone is a direct replica of the original specimen, it would be possessed of the exact same memories and experiences. It would have thought it had a childhood, and the parents of the specimen met the clone, they would swear under oath that it was their offspring. Furthermore, is it really "defin[ing] in a meaningful way" to simply state that the clone came afterwards. That assertion is merely chronological and fails to take into account my previous statements regarding experiences etc / the fact that they are exactly the same in every way.
Also, I'd say this is an extremely relevant question, given the capabilities of modern science. In a society with people dying for want medicinal cures, and being on the brink of cloning technology, these ethical dilemmas are pertinent. Cloning could provide many benefits, clones could be reared in certain environments to observe psychological effects. They could be compared with the original specimens to supplement or replace previous 'nature vs nurture' research. They could even be grown specifically for the harvesting of organs when required by their original. None of these practices are condoned by society when forced upon 'normal' humans. However many state that this is ok for clones, as they are secondary. Thus, questions such as this are some of the increasingly prominent ethical issues of our time.
milskidasith said:
What practical meaning does this accomplish? If I'm catching your meaning right, it's basically saying that we don't perfectly see ourself mentally, just an illusion of our thoughts our brain creates so we can have thoughts, and that that illusion only exists, not based on all experiences, but only on the exact situation we are in.
So... we all can't really know what we think, just what we think we think, and it's only based on what is happening right now, not based on past experiences and foresight (even though foresight is what separates us from other animals, among other things). How is this relevant to anything pertaining in the real world, and where is the scientific study backing it up?
I've probably got the concept completely wrong, but those are two of the four problems I have with philosophy in general:
1. It rarely seems relevant to the real world. I'm hardly able (and probably completely incorrect) in parsing what you've said even in your summary, and if my parsing is correct, by definition it actually excludes you from gaining any knowledge of your true self, because you can only perceive the illusion you *think* is real. Again, I probably read it incorrectly, but if I have it right, it's completely circular logic:
Philosopher: I've got this theory, that we only perceive an illusion of our own thoughts created by our brains, that forms our self.
Me: So how do you know what your brain is truly doing?
Philosopher: You can't, because you'll only get an illusion of what you think your brain is truly doing.
2. It never seems to be backed up by any kind of scientific study, just the kind of "everything can be deduced by reason" philosophy that concluded heavy objects fall faster because they have more space to be attracted to the ground, or that certain shapes sunk or floated because of natural objects of that shape that sunk or float.
3. The language is completely impenetrable. While this is true for all fields, when philosophy's goal is to better understand humans, it should be understandable by humans.
4. It progresses too fast to seem like the theories are legitimate.
In regards to that having relevance upon the world, by very definition philosophy is the love of wisdom. Is not knowing the objective truth of something a goal in its own?
Referring to your points:
1; Philosophy has had an enormous impact on the world. For example, philosophers often use their observations as a platform to launch into other doctrines. Common examples include Descartes (creator of the Cartesian plane) and Pythagoras, (Pythagoras' theorem). Philosophy also has bearing on the lives of nations through politics, take for example the effect of existentialist philosophers emphasising individualism on the French Revolution, and Marxist philosophy on the Bolshevik revolution.
2; On the contrary, as my previous point stated, this "armchair ratiocination" (-dawkins) often provides a platform for new ways of thinking and scientific enquiry. Furthermore, it is reasonable to define Empiricism itself as a philosophical doctrine. Also, to give a contemporary example, a recent popular branch of brain philosophy is being pursued by academic neuroscientists who use a synergy of philosophical deductions and scientific observations to explain brain activity.
3; The language simply requires a little research to comprehend, as does nigh every field. History requires research to learn the concepts, Mathematics involves words such as, "calculis, polynomial, derivative, bifurcation" etc. In relation to your example, the law applies to all of us, yet it involves latin terms such as "magna carta, ratio decidendi, prima facie" and so on, which the common person would not understand, despite being subjected to the law.
4; Often new theories simply build on the old. Just because Newtonian gravity was superseded by Einsteinian, does not make it completely invalid. It was a valuable stepping stone in the path of enlightenment. Whilst it was not wholly correct, we do not call it an illegitimate theory and it is still taught in schools. Furthermore, some theories date back to the times of Socrates and Aristotle, and are still deemed useful and valid even today.
Sorry for picking on you
