The Future of Philosophy in Society

[Didymos Thomas]

The people don't even really get much of a choice. We get both sides of mediocre to choose from, and they are all in bed with each other. All ivy league distant cousins like Bush and Kerry. Not to mention this kind of stuff CFR Presidential Candidates .

Much of politics is dominated by an elite; this should be no surprise. Power is usually closely guarded by those who hold it. The conspiracy theory stuff seems a little much to me.

You are right in that we have very limited choices. Even when we get a significant candidate from outside of the political elite community, like Obama, we are still left with a essentially a choice between the Republican and Democratic parties and their partisan politics.

In a democratic scheme, the only alternative is to introduce a great number of viable political parties. But even this doesn't solve the problem. It's not as if European democracies, with many viable parties, do not suffer from the same problem of closely guarded power in the hands of a select few.

It seems to me we are living in an oligarchy, where only the rich hand picked stooges can even run.

Obama, McGovern. Both upset those hand picked stooges.

Frankly, I think philosophy though often oversteps its place, and I have begun to take a more pragmatic view point lately. There are fields popping up such as Meta-ontology(what is ontology and its scope) and metametaphysics(what is metaphysics do mathematical statements exist ect) indicating an absurd bloating of the field. I would say that even concerns of mind matter dualism/monism and ontology tend to over step what they can sensibly hope to achieve.

Should we leave the questions associated with these fields alone?

Personally, I don't care for such studies. They do seem a little silly to me. However, if they investigate valid questions I can't imagine any problem with people taking up the topics. I think it's a matter of where an individual's curiosity drives him. What other sort of achievement should we seek? It's not as if any other questions of philosophy will be answered in any definitive sense.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

Fido,


I am not talking about spin men, I am talking about the ideas that parties are founded upon, the ideas people should be voting for instead of the personalities of the candidates.I remember a friend being actually shocked when I said it was not the parties that are important, it is the ideas that they hold and promise to affect, no we are not talking about image makers here, When you speak of forms needing change, though the term forms can mean any number of things, I take to mean to get back to the basic principles through the original ideas that constituted the formation of the party in the first place.



It is difficult to institutionalize compassion, which is the source of all morality, but it is not entirely impossiable, surely even morality must be communicated through ideas and concepts, and thus the functionaries of these institutions might then recognize when a vilolation has occured.



I disagree as well that philosophy has no positive effect it is I believe an academic blind spot for some people. As I stated earlier I believe science itself is the child of philosophy.I am told by some Christians that there bible is a philosophy, such as it is it would seem even bad philosophy can be most powerful. Look what in the Whitehouse!!!

And I am saying just the opposite, that parties are has been trash imported from England where they have served no good purpose, and the ideas these parties have come up with a shrill, shallow, and meaningless. Hear is an ideal, albeit a contra idea: Anti Communism. Sure, get us into Korea because of another contra idea: Who Lost China?; and Get us into another contra idea: The dommino theory. Where is the leadership in facing one idea against another for the underlying idea of a goal exclusive power. The reasons democrats are better with the economy is that they are not so much idealogues, and the reason they have so little chance to correct the economy is that the republican are more ideologues. They are both demogoges. They appeal to the people, they know how to play upon the emotions, usually the fears, and seldom the hopes of the people, but they have no new ideas, just versions of old ideas, to which people continually present old ideas to be battered.

We have parts of our government, like the executive that no one can reach. How many people can actually know a president, and have a meaningful relationship with him? We do not vote for person's but personality, and the power surrounding the office, of one man standing for 300 million draw influence peddlers and camp followers. The house of representatives, whichshould be the day to day government of the country, the parlement, the deliberative body, has been sabotaged. Each representative should represent no more than thirty thousand. In limiting their number the house ruined the democracy, and made the house a sellers market. In fact , Government was formed around some good ideas, clearly stated and as quickly forgotten: Justice, liberty, tranquility, welfare, defense. They are all good ideas flushed down the drain of history.

And party was the first flush of these good ideas. No nation can be divided so neatly into two parties. In this country the republicans come closest to a natural group, and the democrats are the party of everyone else. Even among the republicans there are ideological republicans and economic republicans. There are republicans who feel they have to vote, and vote republican even though the republicana routinely crap in their mouths, like the family farmers; and for such people the taste of crap must be expected; because they take it. The democrats do not give anything to the blacks that they do not take from poor whites, and the blacks must like it, because if they vote, they usually vote democratic.

The thing is that a nation is an idea used properly of people as one people. All ideas are one thing, but a nation is also one people; and for anyone, or any two parties to drive any wedge between that one people to have political power cannot then say they are weilding power for the whole people. To divide people from their rights, as the parties both do, in order to make local and sectional issues into national issues, as national parties do is a serious injury. First, not all issues are national. Second, no small section can possibly defend their rights on a national stage. Third, people should have the right to determine their own course if that course has no affect on others. and fourth, Only issues having an effect on you is properly your concern. Now, there is nothing in our constitution to prevent parties, or to prevent party collusion to ruin the rights of people. So there the constitution fails us. Parties are not mentioned in the constitution so far as I know, and yet they have become part of the constitution just as the church became in the English Constitution, because church and state were both an aid to the other. But are parties really an aid, if they collude to limit representation, as they did in the case of the house of reps, or by making the defense of rights beyond the reach of individuals and sections? Parties add a level of inertia to government. We should be able to petition the government for a redress of geivance as in the English Constitution, but we have this extra constitutional level of inertia, so we must first move the parties before we can move the government.

The only idea any of these people hold is as old as dirt. It has many names but it is naked power. If parties have power we do not. If the government has power we do not. They say the people are sovereign, and the meaning is that the government will do as it wants. It does not work, and it does not work because it has no new ideas, but a lot of old ideas, and it lets those ideas interfere with human relationships. No party could get elected were it not possible for them to manipulate the people, and no manipulat ion of the people would be possible if the people were not kept ignorant and fearful. What are we ignorant of? Our country, what it has and what it does, and who owns it. What are we afraid of: the world, each other, the government, and our own stupidity, which we are all conscious of and compensating for.

[Aedes]

Zetetic,
My feeling is that the only examples in which philosophy directly changes anything, as opposed to just organizing pre-existing ideas, are in very practical areas that can be easily and directly put into practice. An example would be the scientific methods, including but not limited to Descartes (for example Koch's postulates for microbial disease are a different kind of scientific method). Another example is where philosophy borders on political science (as I discuss below with Montiesquieu).

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

While the reference to Locke's ideology was prompted by practical need, it still shaped the methods of government used to form this country, and don't think the founding fathers were not all very well read in philosophy and do not think that the writings of philosophers did not shape their worldview.

The philosophers they referenced were merely formalizing common sentiments that had been felt throughout Europe since the 17th century. Furthermore, Locke's influence was minimal on the US Constitution or form of government (and is reflected mostly in the preamble) -- his influence was mainly on the Declaration of Independence, which has nothing at all to do with the methods of government in the United States. The Declaration of Independence was merely a list of complaints about the British Monarchy, and honestly it didn't change a thing, the Revolutionary War was almost a year old by the time the Declaration was signed. The strongest philosophical influence on the US Constitution was Montesquieu, who was himself influenced by the English Revolution in 1688.

Also, do you really think Lenin was only paying lip sevice to marx? He seemed pretty sincere about his belief in the marxist doctrines.

Not in practice. What he believed was diametrically opposed to what he did. He believed, as Marx did, that Communism was so inevitable that the people would just rise up to create a communist society. And he felt that in particular the Russian involvement in WWI was the seed that would create this movement. Of course that did not happen, and Lenin as it turns out was the major figure (along with Trotsky) in a 5-year civil war from 1918-1923 that cost 15 million lives, i.e. 3 times the Russian losses against Germany in WWI.

I think you might have him confused with stalin

No, I have not.

Lenin, however, had a pretty short reign and seems to me quite the opposite of Joseph Stalin

I'm not making any comparison of Lenin to Stalin. I'm commenting only on Lenin's behavior, which was grotesque and barbaric.

Red Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lenin was responsible for the revolution, Stalin was responsible for its bastardization.

The revolution itself was a bastardization of Marx' philosophy. Before Stalin ever took power the Soviet state was a brutal police state that was designed around oligarchy, NOT around any Marxist principle. Stalin actually did MORE than Lenin to try and effect a Marxist state by his collectivization programs -- of course those were executed in a horrific way that caused millions to die by starvation.

Also, does not the Christian philosophy influence western society at its very core?

What is Christian philosophy? To say that Christianity has shaped society is a given. But Christian philosophy? Is there such a thing? The church has influenced society through power, and protestant leaders like Calvin and Luther influenced society by rebelling against church influence.

Did not aristotle, plato, Socrates change the course of human tohught and progress to some extent at least?

Socrates not in the slightest -- the only important person who was ever influenced by Socrates was Plato. And again, I think you're confusing the cart with the horse. Plato and Aristotle were indeed incorporated into Western society almost exclusively through their influence on church theology. But in this was it Plato and Aristotle who changed society? Or was it a society that incorporated them as they saw fit?

Did you forget that Descartes had as much influence on the enlightenment as Newton?

He did not. Descartes was more influential on society as a mathematician and as a scientific theorist than he was as a philosopher. What other than subsequent philosophers changed based on Descartes' meditations?

You clearly forget that einstein often claimed philosophy to be integral to any sucessful scientist and often credits his romance with philosophy for the way of thinking that allowed him to discover what he did.

Whether or not philosophy stirred his soul, his solution to a mathematical / physical problem was conducted within the boundaries of the science. It was not philosophy that created or proved special relativity.

I also take exception to the idea that he mathematically proved his theories.

He of course called upon previous work, including significantly by Lorentz, but that doesn't change the fact that special relativity meant nothing until it was mathematically demonstrated.

Clearly they are still theories, not laws

It's oxymoronic to call something "just a theory" in science. When the word is used formally and not colloquially, a theory is the HIGHEST form of scientifically established agreement in existence. It gets no higher than a theory. Gravity and electromagnetism are also both theories.

[Zetetic11235]

The appropriate word is not oxmoronic, there is no implicit contradiction, maybe in a sense redundant.

I think you misunderstand my position on the theory thing, I thought you were stating that there is a such thing as a scientific law, in violation of its necessity to be based solely in emperical data and thus having domain over an open system. In the sense that Einstein's explanations more closely fit reality than the prior system, yes, he chose the correct system in mathematics to express this. It is not necessarily going to be the correct answer in the end, though some people tend to take it this way. You are simply restating what I had said in that last comment of my previous post, really.

Now, Socrates implicitly affected everyone affected by a philosopher who drew ideas from anyone who drew ideas from him. Thus he affected plato, John Locke, the founding fathers, Leibnitz, Descartes, ect. How about the Roman emperors and philosopher kings of the early Byzentine era? How about the pythagoreans? Much of math and all of physics, was born of philosophy. The idea that mathematics could be applied to physical phenomena was at one time a philosophic ideal and not universally accepted. Now you say in the present day, and once again I reiterate Marxism, which still holds for the socialist countires. I mentioned the socialist coutries in my previous post and you did not rebut this. Many politicians hold to this. How about the affect of philosophy on computer science which is entirely born out of analytic philosophy and formal logic. Georg Cantor, Boole up through Frege, Russell, Godel, Quine ect. Philosphy has a strong influence on many areas of mathematics. How about the theory of language? How about Philosophy of Mind? Much of technical acedemics has roots in pure philosophy and extends its findings into more practical areas. Much of theoretical physics relys(especially string theory/Unified theory) upon physical extrapolation of mathematical facts and data to create a picture of what is really happening. In fact, many theoretical physicists profess openly the merits and necessity of philosophy in their work. One of the more notable ones being Roger Penrose. Theoretical physics has much applied philosophy within it. This article is interesting; Quantum Philosophy

To that philosophy is only turned to when it is practical and easily implemented, of course that is the case! Philosophy in practice is an opportunistic beast. Is this not the case for anything applied?

I side with Nietzsche on the idea that Christianity is a fossilized philosophy, a set of thoughts and beliefs that have been set into stone and made utilitarian. From it though, a philosophical stance can be derived, as is true of all dogmas. Many protestant branches have deveopled disticnt philosophies and I actually know a very intelligent fellow who intends to spread his philosophy of christianity as an anglican minster after he gets his doctorate in political science. How about 'natural rights'?

I'm sorry Aedes, but there is a pretty large camp which cites philosophy as quite influential of the general population and mindset of the day as well. The arguement for this seems pretty strong. How often have you seen hints of the existential in popular culture? How much did philosophy influence the counter culture in the 60's?

There is a balance between the masses and the radicals and thinkers. The minority of radicals pulls slowly the majority to them, and changes their course, and the majority keep the radicals in line so as they do not keep everyone in a state of continual change and thus chaos. Were it not, though, for the radicals, we would all be cavemen now. This is how I view progress to be, a balance of these two forces. To say the masses pull themselfs makes little sense to me. It is clear a few great minds make a splash in the pond and only then do the ripples flow out upon the vast surface, not that the ripples bring about the stone.

I would say that philosophy is what drives all men and women who are awake, and it is precisely those people who bring shape to the world. It is great ideas, which philosophy generates, and great actions which they bring about. Maybe you think I am considering too much to be under the scope of philosophy, fine. I don't agree.

I would say that philosophy is no longer so obviously prevalent due to the lack of absolute rule, philosophy trickles down to the masses who are slowly, less obviously influenced. They are influenced nontheless.

In the extreme individual case, many violent radicals and school shooters were influenced heavily by philosophy.

P.S. Much of Obama's political past indicates to me that he is indeed someone who has been pretty significantly groomed, brought up to the senate and then quickly run a president. His memoirs were so easliy published considering how big of a name he was when they came out, it smells a bit fishy to me. I often wonder whether McCain was picked to loose to Obama, he's such a poor choice for the republicans. I wouldn't put it past the two-party machine.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

The appropriate word is not oxmoronic, there is no implicit contradiction

Yes there is. You said "just a theory," i.e. minimizing what a theory actually is in science. That IS contradictory, to use a diminutive modifier for it.

I thought you were stating that there is a such thing as a scientific law

Where did I even comment about such a thing?? I commented about scientific advancements, irrespective of which noun you substitute, and that it was scientists employing science and NOT philsophers employing philosophy who made these advancements.

It is not necessarily going to be the correct answer in the end, though some people tend to take it this way.

You're missing the point. The point was that it was an advancement that he made using both theoretical physics and mathematics. It's not an advance that a contemporaneous philosopher made using logic.

Socrates implicitly affected everyone affected by a philosopher who drew ideas from anyone who drew ideas from him.

Very implicitly, seeing as his philosophy is only known to the world through the philosophical writings of Plato. So while one may look at something like Plato's Phaedo as perhaps the most direct retelling of Socrates' ideas, the unwritten words of Socrates are essentially impossible to separate from Plato's own ideas.

Furthermore, probably no one of importance referenced Socrates' own philosophies in subsequent philosophy. Plotinus and the early Christian theologians referenced PLATO. The late Scholastics, esp Aquinas, and the Muslim and Jewish analogs like Averoes, Avicenna, and Maimonides, referenced ARISTOTLE. They did not reference Socrates. Were it not for Plato Socrates would have remained nothing but a satirical character in an Aristophanes play. So sure, I can credit Socrates with influence on history, but then again Plato's mother also had a fairly profound influence on history herself.

Much of math and all of physics, was born of philosophy.

Do you forget that mathematics and physics were legitimate disciplines unto themselves? Pythagorus' philosophies are pretty ridiculous, but he had a profound influence on mathematics proper.

I mentioned the socialist coutries in my previous post and you did not rebut this.

And you completely overstate the importance of socialist philosophy on the development of socialist societies. You really think that all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are VERY socialized compared with the US, have some debt to Marx? No -- these are societies that have addressed specific social problems with centralized social programs. Not because Marx said anything about socialized medicine or state-sponsored higher education or state-sponsored pension plans or taxes.

Much of technical acedemics has roots in pure philosophy and extends its findings into more practical areas.

Even if an area of philosophy launches an area of technical science, the influence of philosophy basically ends once the science enters the practical realm. It builds on itself like any other science.

Much of theoretical physics relys(especially string theory/Unified theory) upon physical extrapolation of mathematical facts and data to create a picture of what is really happening.

And yet some physicists have argued that string theory, even if mathematically solved, will be nothing but an unverifiable mathematical tautology that has no bearing on reality at all.

I side with Nietzsche on the idea that Christianity is a fossilized philosophy, a set of thoughts and beliefs that have been set into stone and made utilitarian.

I think that's absurd. Christianity did not start as a philosophy and it is not a philosophy now. Its "truth" has always relied on revelation and the supernatural, and its legitimacy has always been maintained by power (including over people's fear of damnation) and never by logic. Yes, I know that the likes of Aquinas sought to make Christian theology logical, but as Spinoza boldly illustrated it's an absurd project when it all comes down to prophecy and miracles in the end. To the extent that you might point out philosophical systems that occur in the boundaries of Christianity, I'd respond that that is THEOLOGY and not philosophy, with the important distinction that theology employs non-philosophical, rigid assumptions that are used to supercede any logical counterarguments. Add on the cultural, political, and economic power held by church authorities and it appears that it's not really any philosophy per se that's moving humanity.

From it though, a philosophical stance can be derived

Well, a coffee-shop philosophical stance is not what we're debating here. We're talking about whether or not philosophy itself, absent some other means of force or some other subtext, actually changes society.

Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela, etc, all of whom led major movements while espousing a philosophical ideal and a specific ideal (i.e. civil disobediance and non-violence), changed the world by motivating people, by infecting them with hope and possibility, by empowerment and by a sense of togetherness, of unification. It was not the IDEA per se that moved people -- it was the optimism (combined with a charismatic leader)! You mention Obama down below -- his popularity has mainly to do with this optimism, just as it did with Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, etc.

And guess what, that was true for the opposite end of the ethical spectrum, i.e. for the Nazis and for the Fascists and for the Bolsheviks and for the Mensheviks and for the KKK and for the Taliban. They ALSO infected people with optimism, made people feel empowered and united in a struggle, but the difference is these were militant movements that mainly played off the prejudices and fears of disaffected teenage boys.

The ideas are important, but in the end it's not the idea itself that changed the world. It was the combination of a leader with a group that sought to be led. As Dostoyevsky said, man strives for nothing so ardently as to find someone to follow.

Many protestant branches have deveopled disticnt philosophies

Do you mean theology here? It's not the same thing.

I'm sorry Aedes, but there is a pretty large camp which cites philosophy as quite influential of the general population and mindset of the day as well.

You're utterly and completely missing my point, and you have been all along, and you're accordingly misreading my posts. I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall.

P.S. Much of Obama's political past indicates to me that he is indeed someone who has been pretty significantly groomed, brought up to the senate and then quickly run a president. His memoirs were so easliy published considering how big of a name he was when they came out, it smells a bit fishy to me. I often wonder whether McCain was picked to loose to Obama, he's such a poor choice for the republicans. I wouldn't put it past the two-party machine.

How did we get onto this subject? I don't see the connection to the rest of your post.

[Zetetic11235]

Sorry about that, that P.S. was to Didymos Thomas. I wouldn't say theology is divorced from philosophy. Many branches are based in masses of presumptions in both philosophy and theology. What is theology but applied philosophy?

Where did I get the idea that you might think there is such a thing as a physical law..
"Hmm, Einstein revised the previous physics because they were mathematically unsatisfactory. He proved his own theories mathematically. I don't see how philosophy has any importance here."

Now perhaps this was just clumsy wording, perhaps you meant that he proved his theories fit a mathematical framework. If so, fine, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, go back and re-read how I adressed that initially, I think you misunderstood me there. Judging especially by the extrapolation you made in cliaming I stated that anything is 'just a theory', which are entirely your own words, resultant of your misreading of my post. I was making the point that a scientific theory cannot be mathematically proven as the domain of influence is not over some closed system based on the bold text above.

To your feeling of , likewise.

I will reiterate; if somthing has influence over somthing indirectly, it is still influence. Socrates had influence over everyone who was influenced by plato, since plato was heavily influenced by him.
Consequently, anyone influenced by those influenced by plato, whether in refutation or adoption of ideas, were also influenced by socrates. Coffee shop philosophy is fine, you did not initially stipulate that we were limited to academics, for of course they have more influence on acedemics than anyone else, but thier ideas trickle down. Anyone affected by an ideology is affected by philosophy by my view.

Lenin was heavily responsible for the Bulshevik revolution, the tactics of which were quite ingenius . He also developed the leninist doctrine and and modern propaganda techniques. I would say that Lenin was a man who did at the end have faith in the communist model. After all, the communist is a religious man, communism has the attributes of religion in its methods. This again brings about the idea that religion is simply philosophy that has been fossilized into a set of dogmas and principals. This further implies that a change in theology constitutes a philosophic change.

Also, you forgot to adress what I said about computer science and analytic philsophy/logic and the influence on psychology.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Sorry about that, that P.S. was to Didymos Thomas. I wouldn't say theology is divorced from philosophy. Many branches are based in masses of presumptions in both philosophy and theology. What is theology but applied philosophy?

Where did I get the idea that you might think there is such a thing as a physical law..
"Hmm, Einstein revised the previous physics because they were mathematically unsatisfactory. He proved his own theories mathematically. I don't see how philosophy has any importance here."

Now perhaps this was just clumsy wording, perhaps you meant that he proved his theories fit a mathematical framework. If so, fine, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, go back and re-read how I adressed that initially, I think you misunderstood me there. Judging especially by the extrapolation you made in cliaming I stated that anything is 'just a theory', which are entirely your own words, resultant of your misreading of my post. I was making the point that a scientific theory cannot be mathematically proven as the domain of influence is not over some closed system based on the bold text above.

To your feeling of , likewise.

I will reiterate; if somthing has influence over somthing indirectly, it is still influence. Socrates had influence over everyone who was influenced by plato, since plato was heavily influenced by him.
Consequently, anyone influenced by those influenced by plato, whether in refutation or adoption of ideas, were also influenced by socrates. Coffee shop philosophy is fine, you did not initially stipulate that we were limited to academics, for of course they have more influence on acedemics than anyone else, but thier ideas trickle down. Anyone affected by an ideology is affected by philosophy by my view.

Affect smaect. Every thing affects every thing else, through gravity, if in no other fashion. Considering that many people actually believe as Plato believed in regard to society, as an example, Then his effect is quite near. What does it mean that he did not understand his own time, let alone ours? And that is the fault in ideology. Ideas properly speaking is how we think, and not what we think. As soon as we develop an idea of the perfect society we should step back, and say: nothing is better than what works. That is, rather than reaching a conclusion that is an ideal, we should not reach a conclusion at all because a conclusion is an enemy to thought. And the thought represents better what life is: A Dynamic.

Those people who want to change society, or change the world should do as the Muslims say; and change themselves. Human beings have one method of social change, and it is by a change of forms, that is, of Ideas. He who would hold up an idea, as a fixed notion of how society should be, will get some to move, and as many to resist; and it is pointless anyway since people build the relationships they want anyway regardless of form; so even when you can inspire people to action it does not mean you won't be consumned by the change you seek, or that it will not turn to something worse yet. If you really want to change the world in a meaningful fashion, teach people to think, and how to think, with forms, ideas, but to recognize the human purpose in change, of making mankind better, and of making our forms produce good. Then they will take care of their relationships as they see fit.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Where did I get the idea that you might think there is such a thing as a physical law..
"Hmm, Einstein revised the previous physics because they were mathematically unsatisfactory. He proved his own theories mathematically. I don't see how philosophy has any importance here."

Again, are you seeing something that I don't? I don't find any mention of physical law here. Mathematical demonstration of a proposed model is fairly important to the world's acceptance of that model. And the fact that that mathematically demonstrable model corresponds to empirically observed phenomena is the ONLY reason why his ideas have had any durability. And that's exactly what I meant. Maybe my wording could have been clearer, but you took a lot of liberties with what I wrote that bear no resemblance to what I meant.

I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Yup.

Also, you forgot to adress...

No, I just don't have time in my life to take care of my 4 month old all weekend while my wife has been on call in the hospital, do a crapload of yardwork, spend hours writing a textbook chapter, AND respond to every last point of yours (including this most recent thread of yours) during my spare time. I'm doing my best to participate to the extent that I have time and interest.

[Zetetic11235]

I took the same liberties you did. I never even said 'Just a theory', I said 'clearly not laws' and you made erroneous extrapolations based on this. Whatever, its of little consequence to the arguement at large.

As to you being busy, man, how are going to criticize me for mis-reading/responding to your posts if you aren't going to fully read/respond to mine? I understand an internet debate is not a high priority for you, but if you are going to do it do it right or not at all. I admit I often glance over posts and miss things as a consequence, in fact, most of the times I am blatantly wrong in a post is thanks to this, but I try to limit it.

Aside from all this, I feel we haven't gotten anywhere. I am still unconvinced that philosophy does not have an influence on other academic disciplines nor society at large. In fact, you can't convince me of the former as it is flat out wrong. So it is established that philosophy(particularly analytic) has influence outside of philosophers, but maybe not on society at large. The latter is very difficult to argue, though I lean to thinking that philosphy does indeed hold influence on th mass scale, and I still argue that such is evinced by Lenin. Even if his methodology in implementing the doctrine was contrary to the standard maxist ideology, Marx was still his prime motivator. The marxist(by then lenninist-marxist) ideology also directly influenced Mao, even if it was twisted by him, it served as an ideological spark.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I never even said 'Just a theory'

You said "clearly they are still theories, not laws", which to most readers would suggest that something passes through "theory" before it finally becomes a "law". If you said "he's still a boy, not a man", then that could be easily paraphrased as "just a boy". Same thing. Let's move on.

I understand an internet debate is not a high priority for you, but if you are going to do it do it right or not at all.

I have read all of your posts with sufficient detail to respond. But if I haven't responded to every last point of yours, I feel it's misplaced for you to take that as a concession, as a sign of disrespect, or a sign of insufficient effort on my part. This isn't school -- this is a discussion in which we put in whatever suits us. But if I'm going to face accusations of not "doing it right", and you're more concerned about the rules than the game, then in this particular case I'll choose your "not at all" option. Thanks for the suggestion.