What is the Correct Philosophy?

Post Reply New Topic

AHAH!! !

That is pretty damn close to the correct philosophy, which is Popper's Conjecture/Criticism Method. Its a method of knowledge creation. It goes like this:

(1) Any person conjectures something as truth.

(2) Any person criticizes that conjecture.

(3) Any person criticizes that criticism.

(4) Any person repeats steps 2 and 3 until no one can come up with any more criticisms.

All conjectures that are left uncriticized are considered conjectural knowledge.

And at any point in the future, the steps can be reinstated.

By the way, the scientific community has been doing this since the Scientific Revolution, except that the criticisms were measurable. Popper noticed what the scientists had been doing and realized that this method should be used for all types of knowledge, not just scientific knowledge.

-- Rami

The purpose of philosophy is to encourage critical thinking and constant questioning.

The moment you lay down a philosophical system for how to live is the moment you have given up the pursuit of truth.

Studying philosophy helps promote critical thinking, but does not offer any definitive answers in itself. The knowledge is gained in the process of thinking, and not in the conclusions of previous philosophers (most of whom are wrong and full of themselves)

Yes.



No. Popper's conjecture/criticism method does not get people to give up the pursuit of truth. The pursuit is part of the method.



Yes. Humans are not capable of determining absolute truth. What we do is keep moving from misconception to better misconception while continuing to get closer and closer to the truth.



Yes.

So does mathematics. Any rigorous application of logical will help prevent thinking mistakes.

Philosophy is rather thin in practical applications. Physics and math are much more productive.

ruveyn

Physics and math are good. But they don't help with things outside of physics or math. <CORRECTION> Math helps with many fields outside of the math field.

Philosophy helps with preventing thinking mistakes in all fields of knowledge.

-- Rami

Last edited by rombomb2 on 27 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The correct philosophy is 42.
(Because it's as good an answer as you're ever going to get.)

I don't know about all them thinking mistakes, but somebody once told me that philosophy is about asking the right questions, not finding answers. Finding answers is for logic and mathematics.

I haven't the foggiest clue on what on earth that means, though.

Good philosophy helps one ask the right questions.

But questions are pointless unless one intends to answer them. And answers aren't answers unless they were preceded by questions.

Both mathematics and philosophy asks questions and answers them.

Both mathematics and philosophy are logic.

-- Rami

Interesting, I had never heard of Popper's philosophy before. Regardless, it is a system and my point still stand. On the other hand, i guess I need to do a little more reading before I can say conclusively.

I am an anti-rationalist and a rationalist all at once. I sometimes contradict myself. I will read about Popper more though if I get a chance.

No. You can't even control it. This system is wired into our brains.

So how does the mind do this conjecture/criticism method?

So the unconscious is responsible conjecturing a thought and in this phase, irrationality is acceptable and unavoidable. This step is very chaotic. This is good and very necessary.

-- Then the unconscious serves the thought up to the conscious.

The conscious is responsible for criticizing and in this phase rationality is necessary. This step is more ordered, although its not necessary to be extremely ordered. Why? Because other people will be providing more criticisms. And it would be bad to try to be too ordered because it might keep you from presenting your conjecture to
the world, in which case other people would not be able to provide criticisms, which is bad. But why do we want criticisms? Because criticisms reveal errors. But why do we want errors? Because errors are learning tools, i.e they cause more learning.

I'll define it more clearly:

1. The unconscious is responsible for creating conjectures (which includes conjectured-criticisms) and in this phase, irrationality is acceptable and unavoidable. This step is very chaotic. -->

-- Then the unconscious serves the thought (a conjecture or a conjectured-criticism) up to the conscious. --

2. The conscious is responsible for criticizing the thought, and in this phase, rationality is necessary. And if the thought is a...

(a) conjecture, then the conscious should not attempt to limit entropy. This step is chaotic but [by its nature] is less chaotic than compared to step 1.

(b) conjectured-criticism, then the conscious should attempt to limit entropy [but not too much]. This step is more ordered.

So the conscious should maximize [as much as possible] the entropy in 2a and minimize [not too much] the entropy in 2b.

And about the term *phase*. It could be replaced with *step*, but *step* seems to suggest that it is instantaneous, i.e. one thought whereby *phase* allows for longer periods of time, i.e. thought trains.

-- Rami

The best philosophy is the philosophy to hide what you think, so your enemies don't crush you.

Thats not a philosophy. Its a technique. And its a good one.

You mean it's not a philosophy someone can live by?

No. I definitely agree that we should hide what we think. Not all of it though. But yes hide some things.

What I'm saying is that is a technique; not a philosophy.

Well maybe it is a philosophy. You did explain the technique [hide what you think] and the reasoning to do the technique [so your enemies don't crush you].