Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Feb 2010, 11:29 am

ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy is bullsh*t. It is the tossing of word salad with a lack of precision thrown in as a dressing.

ruveyn

Oh come now, you inhabit a forum where almost all of the questions are philosophy, or if not that, then they are theological or economical. Who are you to say which is BS and which isn't?



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

01 Mar 2010, 2:46 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy is bullsh*t. It is the tossing of word salad with a lack of precision thrown in as a dressing.

ruveyn

Oh come now, you inhabit a forum where almost all of the questions are philosophy, or if not that, then they are theological or economical. Who are you to say which is BS and which isn't?


That is a good question for philosophy.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

01 Mar 2010, 9:08 am

fidelis wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy is bullsh*t. It is the tossing of word salad with a lack of precision thrown in as a dressing.
ruveyn

Oh come now, you inhabit a forum where almost all of the questions are philosophy, or if not that, then they are theological or economical. Who are you to say which is BS and which isn't?


That is a good question for philosophy.


Philosphy phactor topic

Ruveyn is being Wittgenstein here.

I understand what he means (analytical) and I see what he means (conceptual). :D


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Mar 2010, 11:26 am

sartresue wrote:
fidelis wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy is bullsh*t. It is the tossing of word salad with a lack of precision thrown in as a dressing.
ruveyn

Oh come now, you inhabit a forum where almost all of the questions are philosophy, or if not that, then they are theological or economical. Who are you to say which is BS and which isn't?


That is a good question for philosophy.


Philosphy phactor topic

Ruveyn is being Wittgenstein here.

I understand what he means (analytical) and I see what he means (conceptual). :D

I thought Wittgenstein considered philosophy important as a form of mental cleansing, and held to the idea that if we had clear-enough language, then philosophical problems should disappear, but until then we'll have problems. This seems different than ruveyn, although I would have to delight in some irony if ruveyn ended up being philosophical in his expressed distaste for philosophy.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Mar 2010, 3:26 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
s. This seems different than ruveyn, although I would have to delight in some irony if ruveyn ended up being philosophical in his expressed distaste for philosophy.


Metaphilosophical. Philosophy about philosophy is not philosophy. It is metaphilosophy. I don't allow self reference paradoxes.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Mar 2010, 8:46 am

ruveyn wrote:
Metaphilosophical. Philosophy about philosophy is not philosophy. It is metaphilosophy. I don't allow self reference paradoxes.

ruveyn

No, it actually is philosophy. Metaphilosophy has long been a branch of philosophy and one with practicing philosophy professors.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Mar 2010, 1:59 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Metaphilosophical. Philosophy about philosophy is not philosophy. It is metaphilosophy. I don't allow self reference paradoxes.

ruveyn

No, it actually is philosophy. Metaphilosophy has long been a branch of philosophy and one with practicing philosophy professors.


The above statement is an example of metametaphilosophy.

ruveyn



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

02 Mar 2010, 2:17 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sartresue wrote:
fidelis wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy is bullsh*t. It is the tossing of word salad with a lack of precision thrown in as a dressing.
ruveyn

Oh come now, you inhabit a forum where almost all of the questions are philosophy, or if not that, then they are theological or economical. Who are you to say which is BS and which isn't?


That is a good question for philosophy.


Philosphy phactor topic

Ruveyn is being Wittgenstein here.

I understand what he means (analytical) and I see what he means (conceptual). :D

I thought Wittgenstein considered philosophy important as a form of mental cleansing, and held to the idea that if we had clear-enough language, then philosophical problems should disappear, but until then we'll have problems. This seems different than ruveyn, although I would have to delight in some irony if ruveyn ended up being philosophical in his expressed distaste for philosophy.


Diet of words topic

Wittgenstein (one of my faves) wrote about the end of philosophy by writing about it. Strange, I know. He also advised some students to cease its study as a waste of time. I was strtetching the Witty man a bit , and then I interpreted Ruveyn's comments as both analytical and conceptual. As many others have written here, both are needed.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Mar 2010, 2:25 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Metaphilosophical. Philosophy about philosophy is not philosophy. It is metaphilosophy. I don't allow self reference paradoxes.

ruveyn

No, it actually is philosophy. Metaphilosophy has long been a branch of philosophy and one with practicing philosophy professors.


The above statement is an example of metametaphilosophy.

ruveyn

Is that a metametametaphilosophical statement?



LoveMoney
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

02 Mar 2010, 11:46 pm

Quote:
Example: I play chess almost exclusively by pattern recognition, ie I look at the board and think "this looks a lot like a position I've seen before, and pushing my kingside pawns worked well then, so maybe it will also work this time." Trying to actually calculate the variations (the analytical/detailed way of thinking) is infeasible, even for most computers. Trying to just look at positional considerations (the conceptual approach) would leave you hanging pieces to simple tactics.





I tend to be coceptual in chess, but I also try to look forward.
I never look at my past games, I'm sorry ofcourse I do but not so active more passive.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

03 Mar 2010, 12:09 am

LoveMoney wrote:
Quote:
Example: I play chess almost exclusively by pattern recognition, ie I look at the board and think "this looks a lot like a position I've seen before, and pushing my kingside pawns worked well then, so maybe it will also work this time." Trying to actually calculate the variations (the analytical/detailed way of thinking) is infeasible, even for most computers. Trying to just look at positional considerations (the conceptual approach) would leave you hanging pieces to simple tactics.





I tend to be coceptual in chess, but I also try to look forward.
I never look at my past games, I'm sorry ofcourse I do but not so active more passive.

Pattern thinking is extremely important if you play passive as well, because you risk falling into a deadly mating attack. I normally am not the most active player, but I have a few good games and you absolutely have to rely on pattern recognition in complex tactical positions. No human can calculate all the lines out.

Here's an example:
[Event "ICS Rated Chess Match"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.03.02"]
[Round "?"]
[White "opponent"]
[Black "Orwell"]
[WhiteElo "1552"]
[BlackElo "1637"]
[TimeControl "900+0"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. Nf3 c5 2. d3 d5 3. Bf4 Nc6 4. e3 f6 5. Nfd2 e5 6. Bg3 Be6 7. Be2 Qd7
8. Nb3 O-O-O 9. Bf3 Nge7 10. O-O Nf5 11. a4 Nxg3 12. fxg3 g5 13. e4 d4
14. h3 h5 15. Bxh5 Bxh3 16. g4 Rxh5 17. gxh5 Bg4 18. Qd2 Qf7 19. Qf2 Be7
20. Nxc5 Rh8 21. Nxb7 Kxb7 22. Qg3 Qxh5 23. Nd2 Na5 24. b4 Bxb4 25. Rab1
Nc6 26. Rxf6 a5 27. Kf2 Bd1 28. Nf3 Bxc2 29. Rb2 Bxd3 30. Nxe5
{Orwell forfeits on time} 1-0

Now, look at moves 1-8: my opponent is failing to occupy the center. The position reminds me a bit of King's Indian positions, so I set up the typical structure I use as white in the Sicilian Dragon (Maroczy Bind/Yugoslav Attack), King's Indian Saemisch, Philidor, etc. It's a simple attacking structure that works in a lot of different situations. At move 9, I hung a pawn by blocking off the bishop which was defending c5- I'm not used to seeing his knight in the strange position it took, it did not fit in my usual patterns. He also did not notice, and I remedied the situation on my next turn. I take the opportunity to gain the bishop pair and weaken his kingside pawns. With this structure, I know that opening up the kingside has often led to victory. Then I start pushing pawns (also a common pattern here), and on move 14 I sacrificed a pawn to open a file for the attack- open files have worked in the past, and a strong attack is better than a pawn. I offer a bishop sacrifice which he cannot possibly accept, and then I sac an exchange to keep the kingside open (he was threatening to construct a bishop-pawn fortress). Through the rest of the game I continued to bear down on the open files and did only as much as was necessary to contain his queenside counterplay. If you look at the final position, you will see that I am overwhelmingly winning. My opponent will soon be checkmated or take catastrophic material losses. The reason I lost? While contemplating the sacrifices I offered during moves 14-16, I was too cautious and tried to be analytical, calculating out all the variations. I did not trust my gut intuitions which told me "sacrifice here, you've seen this before, it will pay off." After seven minutes of analysis, I realized that my intuitions were correct and the sacrifice was sound, but then I did not have enough time to finish him off. And even with my attempts to be analytical, I did not see all of the lines- his move 15 was different from what I had expected and made it harder to carry out my plan.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH