FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why do you think philosophy is so unpopular here?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
That's not a loaded question. I'm just interested. If you did some kind of graph showing the popularity of topics on FE you'd probably find current events and social mixing threads up top (fair enough), theology round about the middle and philosophy barely registering. Why is that? People have so much to say about so many other things, but philosophy (which is surely important to the crisis in the Church) is the leper subject of the forum. What gives? Why do so many people not want a bar of it?
I'm interested in it, it's just so, well, heavy.  Where as, you don't have to think so hard to read and comment on the other topics here, I guess.  At least, I don't.  :)
I enjoyed Philosophy when I studied it in college.  But I'm just not that well versed in the topic.
(05-07-2010, 07:21 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]I'm interested in it, it's just so, well, heavy.  Where as, you don't have to think so hard to read and comment on the other topics here, I guess.  At least, I don't.  :)

Nah! It's not heavy! Everyone's a philosopher  (çept Benno, of course,) Let's rip into it.

Philo-sophy......from the greek      the love of wisdom
wisdom= the art of finding the RIGHT answer.

Proposition: It's all wrong!

I consider my lack of a proper foundation in philosophy to be the greatest flaw in my education.  I do read what gets posted here, but it is regularly beyond my competence to post. 
I grew up with it....had enough of it then to last a life time of conjecture.  Most philosophers are no good at it any way...so who really cares?  They list the name of types of arguments and declare fallacies when it suits them so they feel educated and superior to their foes..and they usually do this improperly...

Since I am unimpressed with philosophers as a race...I am typically unimpressed with philosophy as a hobby/profession.


Well, you wanted to know.
I have absolutely no background in philosophy and have a hard time reading some of it.  There is no way I would post a comment on it.
(05-07-2010, 04:09 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]That's not a loaded question. I'm just interested. If you did some kind of graph showing the popularity of topics on FE you'd probably find current events and social mixing threads up top (fair enough), theology round about the middle and philosophy barely registering. Why is that? People have so much to say about so many other things, but philosophy (which is surely important to the crisis in the Church) is the leper subject of the forum. What gives? Why do so many people not want a bar of it?

Well, it is a forum, not really suitable for truly in depth discussions. Also, this forum is rather new and "philosophy" is often a topic, just not by itself.
I think the reason it so unpopular is that deductive logic is not something most people consciously practice and, ever since Greeks like Aristotle formalized the consideration of ideas, Philosophy has typically been performed by people possessing some kind of more than mediocre ability in formalized logic.

Or maybe most people just think Philosophy is boring.  And I guess they're right if by Philosophy it is meant "an attempt to contradict common sense with assertions like 'nothing moves.' "
The work is difficult and the visible payoff low.

It's easier to play a video game and get a good feeling out of that than reading and trying to understand this:

"Plotinus" Wrote:1. Pleasure and distress, fear and courage, desire and aversion, where have these affections and experiences their seat?

Clearly, either in the Soul alone, or in the Soul as employing the body, or in some third entity deriving from both. And for this third entity, again, there are two possible modes: it might be either a blend or a distinct form due to the blending.

And what applies to the affections applies also to whatsoever acts, physical or mental, spring from them.

We have, therefore, to examine discursive-reason and the ordinary mental action upon objects of sense, and enquire whether these have the one seat with the affections and experiences, or perhaps sometimes the one seat, sometimes another.

And we must consider also our acts of Intellection, their mode and their seat.

And this very examining principle, which investigates and decides in these matters, must be brought to light.

Firstly, what is the seat of Sense-Perception? This is the obvious beginning since the affections and experiences either are sensations of some kind or at least never occur apart from sensation.

Especially because most people have no use for theoretical metaphysics in their life.  Easier to let Aquinas do it, the Church to promulgate it, and follow the rules based on the conclusions.

On top of that, the average IQ is 100, and really that's not necessarily enough horsepower to get very far in this stuff without tons of extra work (which I am willing to do).  For people with high IQs, it probably comes easier I would guess.

I think it comes down to cost-value.  Most people won't get a value out of it that surpasses the cost.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7