You didn't answer the question.

You didn't listen to anything said.

Sure I did, you said a whole lot of nothing.

You're a fine rhetorician. Since you want to seem to win, rather than work towards the general cause of reason.

You are still avoiding my question.

It seems some people like to sport "philosophy" in the same fashion the emperor strutted around in his new clothes.

You have a cheep debating tactic. If I may presume, congratulations. However, did you ever trouble to see what the title PhD means?

Considering that all you mention is philosophy, the question is doubly senseless. Science is the name for the part of philosophy that came to power about the year 1900. Although, then, still, philosophy was oft used as the name for all the sciences inclusive. How can there be one idea called science? Don't you perceive a distinction between biology and physics, for example? Why the huge compound tag: Science? How did that come to get established? By human beings, or did it fall from your teacher's mouths like heavenly music, or perhaps over your cradle, whispered by the gods?

What is your PhD in?

Why do you want to appeal to public predilection? If we have a mathematician or a physicist here, will you suddenly beg pardon? What motivates this dubitative question, what progress does it point towards in the dialogic exchange? What worthy of a serious person does it promise; are you a friend of reason or popular adulation?

You have a cheep debating tactic. — InternetStranger

:rofl:

"It seems some people like to sport "philosophy" in the same fashion the emperor strutted around in his new clothes."

I agree. However, not always. And it is the chief human trait, to experience anxious consternation and to question the world actively with all their powers.

If STEM is philosophy then why do you not pursue it?

When you get right down to it, there is no way any legitimate philosopher can bypass math and/or science. Personally, I am not a philosopher, my area is mathematical science, but I respect a philosopher who is disciplined in their studies, while I consider others lazy wannabes.

Some people want the glory of being called philosopher but they don't want to put in the hard work to get there.

" I think that's a misguided view and so react negatively when philosophy is portrayed as the study of something superior in some profound sense to life as lived." — InternetStranger

I think yours views are misguided as well, but I did not react negatively to it. I did not even say that philosophy was a study of something superior.

Rutherford isolated the nucleus of the atom. He wasn't, however, concerned with its possible applications. He died believing nothing would come of that discovery, and that the release of the energy from the nucleus would not mean much. He gloried in the knowledge for its own sake, i.e., real knowledge. Not "stamp collecting" — InternetStranger

So what? How big of a percentage of humans stand along side him? Do you think that all humans should be scientists as well?

Weber in many respects controls the universities today. The notion of the "ideal type" is very powerful. The notion of a "fact value" distinction (which, make no mistake, became powerful through Weber, though it was developed by Simmel and stems from Nietzsche, Hume is only accidentally and retrospectively credited with this because of Kant/Nietzsche) controls the whole academic product and the methodology of each field (just as much and more in the those social sciences were it is explicitly rejected, because it still founds those disciplines in their methodology:, e.g., sociology, ethnology, anthropology and the rest of the Kulturwissenschaften). The systematic expulsion of subjectivity, political science, not political philosophy. — InternetStranger

Again, so what? what does this have to do with your statement that all humans are philosophers and therefore should practice philosophy?

Ergo, the point is, philosophy is no other world. — InternetStranger

Who said it was?

Think of living in a tribal life of scarcity and without education. Is it not closer to barbarity? — InternetStranger

Downtown in most big cities you can find street people that are close to being barbarians, is that because of lack of philosophizing?

Ergo, the raising up is what you are now because of what has been philosophized. — InternetStranger

You are what you are now because of history, not all of history was philosophy. Come to think of it there were actually very few philosophers through out history.

Man is not a born philosopher even though he is a born thinker, they are two different things. Science is what has created the screwed up world we live in, why don't we have more scientist to try and straighten it out? Simple, because not everyone is capable of being one. The same goes for philosophy, not everyone is cut out to be one.

I personally would hate to live in a world where everyone practiced philosophy, we would probably still be the same as in the 12th century.

You're a fine rhetorician.

You have a cheep debating tactic. — InternetStranger

Pot kettle, kettle pot? I don't remember but I am sure you get the idea.

Some people want the glory of being called philosopher but they don't want to put in the hard work to get there. — Jeremiah

Right.
As I said earlier, most people don't want to work that hard. Why should they question things that will bring them no benefit?

Lots of people do some philosophic text reading and then quote pieces of them as if they are gospel, and call themselves philosophers. Most of the time without fully understanding the meaning of what they read. A call to some authority of something is all ways right they think.

Rutherford isolated the nucleus of the atom. He wasn't, however, concerned with its possible applications. He died believing nothing would come of that discovery, and that the release of the energy from the nucleus would not mean much. He gloried in the knowledge for its own sake, i.e., real knowledge. Not "stamp collecting". — InternetStranger

It's less than clear to me that a person who seeks or acquires "knowledge for its own sake" is in any sense admirable, let alone more admirable than someone who does so for a purpose or with a regard towards what the consequences or use of that knowledge may be. Depending on the circumstances, I might think the former short-sighted, or unduly self-involved, or uncaring, or a practitioner of a kind of intellectual onanism if the person "glories" in such self-gratification.

"Science" is the name for the currently most popular or publicly powerful form of philosophy. Of the West as such. Stemming from Pythagorean and Platonic teachings of the cosmic power of maths. Remember, the word academic means Plato's Academy, which is the bowels of all universities on the earth, and all their research programs.

"It's less than clear to me that a person who seeks or acquires "knowledge for its own sake" is in any sense admirable, let alone more admirable than someone who does so for a purpose or with a regard towards what the consequences or use of that knowledge may be."

Questioning is human. However, sometimes this impulse is broken. For instance, one feels as though it is more than clear that the purposes of the modern technocratic worker, devoted to benefiting human beings, are sensible in many cases. But, so did Mao with his rational Four Pests Program. So, would one not be justified in celebrating the illumination implied by the discovery or invention of a true and right purpose? For Rutherford genuine investigation of the cosmos was augmented by Political Philosophy, but that no longer exists in any serious sense. Ergo, the lack of any genuine education and the gigantic cauldron of public confusion.

Then what you are saying is that I am more of a philosopher than you are.

Remember, the word academic means Plato's Academy, — InternetStranger

Wrong, it does not.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=academic+

And his was not the first Acadēmicus either. Just because its common modern used goes back to him does not mean that he came up with the idea of academies.

which is the bowels of all universities on the earth, and all their research programs. — InternetStranger

Which is sort of like calling universities shit.

Questioning is human. — InternetStranger

If you count inquisitive as questioning, I have a very philosophical 3 month old pup. She has toured the house, poked at, bitten at, licked, and rubbed against every single thing she can reach to find the best place to take a nap. That was some serious dog style questioning.

It's not clear who is supposed to answer that question, since the most powerful form of philosophy has become the idea of Science, & Science doesn't think, reason or question (as did the older philosophy). According to the Greek idea, philosophy as such, which was extinguished and became the planetary Science, one must strenuously seek the answer to the question: What is choice worthy for its own sake?, i.e., what is good for the human being. No one can say Science is good, except as a story or value judgment. Science can make no test of that (the ideology about utilitarian ethics is not scientific except accidentally in its search for means.) One is drawn into the powerful vortex of a blind, but commonplace and unconscious obedience to the idea of Science. One appeals to it demagogically, to its popularity as world interpretation. Every attempt to question this fateful order is assigned, in advance, the status of a 'let's pretend', which never questions the utter pretending of the idea that science is choice worthy for its own sake. What the human being is, is not asked, it is simply that which takes commands from the idea of Science like an extraordinary inchoate and patternless process which is no longer a nature in contradistinction to the human being. Everything becomes a radical dispensation of the fate of something wholly unintelligible; without potential.

No one can say Science is good — InternetStranger

Science is good. Looks like someone can say it. Should I test that again?

". No one can say Science is good, except as a story or value judgment."

You aren't able to raise yourself to the minimum requirements of intelligent discussion. You're mindless manner of debating is cheep and boring.

"Wrong, it does not."

It does.

" classical Latin Acadēmīa gymnasium near Athens where Plato and his successors taught, school of philosophy founded by Plato, dialectical training of this school, title of a work by Cicero, in post-classical Latin also university (15th cent.; from 16th cent. in British sources) < ancient Greek Ἀκαδημία..."

OED

It was the model for the West. Greater familiarity with the great thinkers of the west is the best way to prove this to yourself.

Anyway, no one is paying me to argue remedial points. Boring.

It was the model for the West. Greater familiarity with the great thinkers of the west is the best way to prove this to yourself. — InternetStranger

Try doing some reading yourself. Academy comes from the name of the place where Plato taught. I have not seen many classes being given in public gardens.

"the classical Academy," properly the name of the public garden where Plato taught his school, "
https://www.etymonline.com/word/academy?ref=etymonline_crossreference

The fact that the word was later adopted to mean schools does is not the equivalent of "meaning" Plato's academy. And as the link I gave pointed out, it was mostly used for theoretical studies not practical research.

Lyceum has a more profound affect on people today, that was where Aristotle taught.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/lyceum?ref=etymonline_crossreference

What about the Stoa, or Porch? There are a lot more porches than there are academies or lyceums.

Simply look how much longer Plato's academy existed, than the Lyceum. It was not so much after it closed that the modern universities came in. It's more like the situation of the elite universities today. Of course there exist thousands of schools, but Harvard and Columbia, Yale and Princeton, or in the sciences Cal Tech and MIT, are the basic models for all learning on the earth. Words like academic reflect that, but reading etymologies of words that so clearly reflect the origin, academician, academic, and so on, is not sufficient to adequately establish that, one ought to consider how Plato was regarded by the most serious and effective persons. Aristotle had to be brought back in, long after the modern universities were established on the model of the academic teachings. I'm not a scholar on the subject, but it is generally well established, and, I believe, corresponds to the truth at the simplest level of the things already said.

Recall the famous word concerning Plato, the west is a series of footnotes to the model he set out. One need not think of the physical setting of a garden, but of the perfect model of education.

You get what you paid for.

:P