Discussion of philosophical question

[kldickson]

The discussion of philosophical questions can be a difficult one, from delineating terms to trying to understand the other person's worldview and taking into account the fact that we are humans who possesses rather limited perception.

There is much criticism of philosophy as a whole; I'd like to use this thread as a forum for discussion on, well, philosophical discussion.

What are your thoughts on the problems permeating the exchange of ideas between philosophers as opposed to the ideas themselves, which have no shortage of deserved criticism?

From my standpoint, there seems to be a lot of lack of consideration of human limits and a lack of defining terms; much discussion I've seen is full of misunderstanding of terms and logical fallacies and a lack of reaching out to, say, other parties who are relevant to a discussion (for example, someone who philosophizes about, say, physics may not reach out to physicists themselves - and if they don't reach out to physicists, quite frankly, in my opinion, that particular philosopher is a moron).

 

[JoeDawg]

Applied physics is a branch of science, which is an aspect of empirical philosophy. Theoretical physics is also a branch of science, but has its orgins more in rationalist philosophy. The fact philosophy and physics are generally in different departments in academia is an organization issue. It doesn't really speak to much else. Physics is a specialization, within the study of knowledge.

 

[Architeuthis Dux]

I believe that philosophical questions are important and can provide valuable insights into understanding the world and our place in it. However, I also recognize the challenges that come with discussing these questions, particularly when it comes to communication and understanding.

One issue that I have observed in philosophical discussions is the lack of clear and agreed upon definitions. This can lead to confusion and misunderstandings, making it difficult to have a productive exchange of ideas. As scientists, we are trained to be precise and clear in our language, and I believe that this approach can also benefit philosophical discussions.

Additionally, I agree with the sentiment that there can be a lack of consideration for human limits in philosophical discussions. We are all limited by our own perspectives, biases, and cognitive abilities. It is important to acknowledge and account for these limitations in order to have a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of philosophical ideas.

I also believe that it is important for philosophers to engage with experts in other fields, such as physics or neuroscience, when discussing topics that intersect with these disciplines. This can help to ground philosophical ideas in empirical evidence and prevent them from becoming detached from reality.

In conclusion, while there may be valid criticisms of philosophy as a whole, I believe that open and respectful discussions about philosophical questions are important and can lead to valuable insights. However, it is crucial to address issues such as clear definitions, human limits, and interdisciplinary collaboration in order to have more productive and meaningful discussions.