Philosophy - You do not have a right to your own opinions!

[El Padre]

Surely it is neccessary for us to hold an opinion, even if only to start/have a debate and benefit from someone elses opinions, we can then process all the information and opinions available to us and continue to grow, or in my case to realise how ignorant I am on so many subjects.

I will have to read fully and reflect a few times the top post, I like these Philosophy posts, we are constantly being told not to poison our bodies with Alcohol, drugs saturated fat etc. but we dont seem to consider how we feed our minds.

Someone once said "If the human brain was simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it".

Cheers

[cool runings]

Surely it is neccessary for us to hold an opinion, even if only to start/have a debate and benefit from someone elses opinions, we can then process all the information and opinions available to us and continue to grow, or in my case to realise how ignorant I am on so many subjects.

I will have to read fully and reflect a few times the top post, I like these Philosophy posts, we are constantly being told not to poison our bodies with Alcohol, drugs saturated fat etc. but we dont seem to consider how we feed our minds.

Someone once said "If the human brain was simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it".

Cheers

You see from my point of view, I have an oppinion because I was given free will.
Therefore if I have free will I have the right to oppinionate about anything and everything.

That does not make me right but it does not change the fact that I have free will.

Philosophy is word play.

Anybody who has the ability can dominate a conversation, if they know how to.

Mostly they are people who yern for somthing they can't achieve, so they construct language to exclude the uneducated and illinformed.

Right is right and wrong is wrong, but what is right?

coolrunnings

.

[DTLarca]

You see from my point of view, I have an oppinion because I was given free will.

I believe I have free will too - but how do we know we have free will?

Philosophy is word play.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion - persuading people of some position. The position can either be a truth or a falsity.

Philosophy is different - it is argument and evidence based. And it follows rules that cannot be broken. in other words they are laws.

In physics you have laws such as that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted, transfered, concentrated or diffused.

In philosophy you have the first law - the law of non contradiction - that something cannot both be and not be at the same time. If you say to me you were in Paris all day yesterday and then to someone else that you were in Barcelona all day yesterday you would have broken the first law of philosophy - the law of non contradiction. If you tried to explain how you were in some metaphysical way in both Paris and Barcelona yesterday you would be merely playing with words - the philosopher will not be fooled by your words

Anybody who has the ability can dominate a conversation, if they know how to.

Dominating a conversation versus identifying falsities or inconsistencies in another's arguments are two different things.

Right is right and wrong is wrong, but what is right?

Exactly - and the only possible way of knowing what is right or even whether knowing right will never be possible is to philosophise on the question sticking to or employing the growing arsenal of rules being built by philosophers as physicist stick to the growing arsenal of laws being built by physics.

[cool runings]

I believe I have free will too - but how do we know we have free will?



Rhetoric is the art of persuasion - persuading people of some position. The position can either be a truth or a falsity.

Philosophy is different - it is argument and evidence based. And it follows rules that cannot be broken. in other words they are laws.

In physics you have laws such as that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted, transfered, concentrated or diffused.

In philosophy you have the first law - the law of non contradiction - that something cannot both be and not be at the same time. If you say to me you were in Paris all day yesterday and then to someone else that you were in Barcelona all day yesterday you would have broken the first law of philosophy - the law of non contradiction. If you tried to explain how you were in some metaphysical way in both Paris and Barcelona yesterday you would be merely playing with words - the philosopher will not be fooled by your words



Dominating a conversation versus identifying falsities or inconsistencies in another's arguments are two different things.



Exactly - and the only possible way of knowing what is right or even whether knowing right will never be possible is to philosophise on the question sticking to or employing the growing arsenal of rules being built by philosophers as physicist stick to the growing arsenal of laws being built by physics.

Ok..


If I admit that you might be better educated than me and have learnt how to philosopise (spelling), how can we possibly carry on??

Will I always be wrong or will my oppinion be valid even if I can't debate why?

Cheers

coolrunnings

.

[DTLarca]

Ok..


If I admit that you might be better educated than me and have learnt how to philosopise (spelling), how can we possibly carry on??

Will I always be wrong or will my oppinion be valid even if I can't debate why?

Cheers

coolrunnings

Indeed, there is a lot of knowledge we have that we cannot explain why - usually instead we have to demonstrate it. Explain to me how you walk or how you ride a bicycle or how you drive a car or how you know she sitting is feeling edgy.

Knowledge of "how" to ride a bike is a knowledge very difficult to explain - knowledge of what strawberries taste to you is very difficult to explain.