I really wish that philosophy was a route that led exclusively to 'good' thoughts. But philosophy is in essence a-moral, as are all the products of the mind.

In his book, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, the author, Emmanuel Faye argues that Martin Heidegger was not a philosopher, and that his works should not be classified under "philosophy" because they were entirely based on National Socialism. Faye argues that Heidegger's work should be classified under "hate speech".

To be a good philosopher is to earn some points in the direction of being a good person. Didn't Schopenhauer kick a prostitute downstairs and end paying her bills for the rest of her life? Oh well, he's still a great philosopher.

If thinking about Being itself isn't philosophical, what is?

Perhaps you are right about Schopenhauer. I stand by my assertion that he's a great philosopher, and the man couldn't stand his own mother.

Socrates fought with his wife, I believe. Isn't there a joke about him learning dialectic from this?

Some would say that Diogenes had problems relating. Some might say this about Nietzsche or Heidegger. Who does and does not "relate" is a matter of interpretation.

I describe my favorite philosophers as creative writers, conceptual artists, purveyors of interpretations. If their product is good, I call them good philosophers.

That being said, I do like to consider a philosopher's biography against his text.

but I will say that philosophy is about love, and if you can't love you don't get it...

Any person's views on any subject = philosophy.

I agree of Nicholas of Cusa that "all science (knowledge) is conjecture."

Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven.

Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven. Or do you think the conservation of energy was "proven"? It turned out to be conjecture, however useful at the time.

And then Newton's conception of space and time were (by our current lights) incorrect. Also Newtonian physics was not perfectly accurate about the movement of the planets, because he didn't "know" about relativity.

Einstein refused to believe that god plays dice.

Technology is evidence, yes, but not proof. Proof enough, I agree. But not a finished description of "reality."

I don't know what Nicholas meant by the word translated as "conjecture", but the notion certainly does not fit our knowledge that water is H20, or that Mars is the fourth planet. Those are not conjectures according to the following definition(s) of the word.

con⋅jec⋅ture

 -noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.


-verb (used with object) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

E= MC2.

Energy can be created from matter, and matter from energy. This "law" of the conservation of energy was the mathematical/conceptual description of a tendency. And one that I doubt any educated scientist continues to believe in. Hiroshima was "proof" that the conservation of energy wasn't proven after all. The "sufficient" evidence was misleading. At the same time this "law" was useful for the construction of technology. But today's success is tomorrow's prejudice. I describe the critical aspect of philosophy as an attack on prejudice. I think the word "proof" encourages a static view of truth.

"Proof" like any other word has a different meaning depending upon its context. For instance, in a legal context as opposed to a geometrical context. Note that Spinoza cast his ethics in a pseudo-geometrical form. This form did not imply a pragmatic/dynamic view of truth.

If all you mean by "proof" is a sufficient amount of evidence for the purpose at hand, I have no objection to that. But my suspicions about the word "proof" are focused on philosophical "proofs." And in the realm of abstract thought especially (such as Hegel's or Descartes') "opinion" remains the word I prefer.

I identify myself with pragmatism, enjoy the study of science, etc. I think highly of Kuhn, Feyerabend. If you haven't read them, I recommend it.

It's exactly because I love the critical aspects of philosophy that I prefer the word "opinion." And linguistic philosophy has instilled within me an irony in regards to this word "proof," except in the everyday pragmatic sense of sufficiently convincing. As I said before: proof is actually persuasion, and "truth" is a matter of consensus.

Water is also h3O...

No it is not. That would be a positively charged hydronium ion, not water. Hydronium ions will exist in a certain proportion within water, but water itself it is not. Nor is tritiated 3H2O the same as H3O.

What does this all have to do with the topic, by the way??

I respect your criticism, Fido. But perhaps you will admit that our mental-model of energy has changed significantly over time. And, am I wrong, or was it once believed that energy and matter were two different things?

Ah, these slippery words...