Original Philosophy, which was simply the study of the natural world to try and discover its rules, laws and truths, use to be the literal arguing between friends.
The very word philosophy is a combination of the words Philos (friend) which funnily enough is my own surname, and Sophia (story or history).
But arguing was not then the chicken-squawking most done today, and most exemplified by women, who will just shout out insults or their idiotic opinion without the substantiation of any kind of objective fact, logical observation, or even tenuous link to reality whatsoever. Even the “better” versions are mere rhetorical shots straw-manning a false argument.
The procedure for correct arguing by intellectually honest men (women have largely a biological incapacity for intellectual honesty, which is why no female philosophers of any note have ever really existed) is as follows:
1. Present your axioms and agree them in principle as being valid, even if only for the purposes of the hypothetical argument being presented.
2. Present your premises, and again, have them accepted, even if only temporarily, for the sake of the argument, unless the opponent can conclusively dismiss a premise by appeal to facts in evidence to both sides that prove the premise is flawed or erroneous to begin with.
3. Logically work through the axioms and premises to make your hypothesis.
4. Check your logic and thinking with your opponent, inviting valid criticism of the thought process used to come to the hypothesis, based on the agreed upon axioms and premises.
5. Modify the hypothesis on the basis of your joined thought experiment of creating a hypothesis using the agreed upon axioms and premises that work at least in theory.
6. State the hypothesis clearly.
7. Check the real world and/or run experiments to see if the hypothesis is plausible.
8. Use the hypothesis to predict how reality will look based on it.
9. Check if the predictions are correct. And not the frequency. If always correct, then the hypothesis is assumed to be valid at least until a set of results that fits the axioms and premises produces an unexpected result. At that point the theory needs revising/adjusting/correcting until it once again is useful for the prediction of events that fit the criteria.
The arguing part, between honest men, has zero ego in it. Arguing is not about who is “right” winning. Arguing has always intended to be a way to discover the truth. It is certainly the case that a more intelligent person van usually see things more clearly and therefore more often come to correct conclusions and thus better theories of how reality works. I have personally only ever felt euphoria at someone better able than I at, not only managing to see or work out some aspect of reality, but helping me see it too!
But the chickenheads (and women, because they are wired to believe everything is about them specifically) get upset instead of happy if anyone other than them proves a point. Because all they care about is appearance and ego, and not at all about truth.
The biological nature of a woman means that any time anything that is perceived by her as a critique of anything she thinks or does, her emotions flare up. This is because (as per Caveman Theory) the main survival pressure for women has been other women, so anything that can appear to be a criticism of her or her ways, lowers her perceived value in the group of women (and therefore, in turn, by social dynamics, among the men who are available to them). And because women primarily use such tactics to overcome other women and place themselves in a better position vis a vis securing the best available man, the emotions immediately run to the sensation of having to ward off an attack.
Which is why a woman will tend to degrade to personal insults, past errors or flaws (real or imagined) and completely separate issues that have nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. Specific and detailed excuses that are supposedly the reason X or Y was not done, or done badly, will persist for YEARS even when the thing not being achieved is the same one.
For example, my wife is constitutionally incapable of ever being on time. And in every one of the probably thousands of times I brought this issue up, she inevitably had 47 different unique reasons why she was late that specific time. And a whole different and unique 47 reasons for each of the other 2,100 times it happened in the last 7 years. I used to inevitably mention that she must be the unluckiest human being on Earth, and even that is not an excuse, because after a few decades on Earth of you KNOWING that by nefarious magic, every year, after year, day after day, event after event, you ALWAYS manage to have all these wildly unexpected things happen to make you late, well, a normal person would set off 2 hours early on average and thus arrive on time!
This would make her most upset at how unfair and evil I was for blaming her for the obviously unpredictable nature of having to consider things like getting dressed. Or putting shoes on. Or selecting which dress. You know what I mean, wild, wild, unexpected stuff that only happens once in a blue moon when you decide to go somewhere.
Now, in case you are wondering, no, everything is fine between my wife and I and I have grudgingly accepted that there are many other theories this immutable law of her tardiness could be related to. For example:
* Charitably, God could be trying to teach me patience, mercy, and compassion.
* Less charitably, I am burning off some of the many years in purgatory I will have before me if I manage to get in.
* Secularly, Time flows differently in her aura of local space-time and my more powerful aura of local space-time overwhelms hers and thus the perceived locus of interference results in a minor disruption of our combined local space-time. This is most likely the best theory, since we both experience a definite sense of irritation and general wrongness of the other person’s invasive and disruptive space-time aura. I’m sure all you physicists agree with me. There is also further evidence of this because with all other conditions being equal, a trip to the supermarket by me can invariably never take as much as an hour, regardless of how busy the place is, while by her can never take less than one hour, and often closer to two, even if all tills are open and free of any other people shopping. Clearly evidence of time flowing differently. But wait! There is more! Regardless of how much free shelf/table/counter spaces I make available to her, they will ALWAYS become overfilled. Left to my own devices, I on the other hand have endless open horizons of counter tops. Clearly physical space operates differently for each of us.
Also, it is a certain fact that she will be unlikely to take my explanation of the above phenomena as the charitable and loving attempt it is to help her better understand the complexity of local space-time topology and how we each affect it uniquely, and is more likely to unfairly accuse me of maligning her in some public shaming event.
Yet, due to my calm and loving nature, I will accept the inevitable texts she will send me regarding this post in a spirit of saintly charity and patience. Which I am sure she will appreciate and return in kind.
Anyway, putting aside local space-time warping, the point I am making is that the art (and science) of proper arguing, is almost entirely lost.
Even most men have devolved to tantrum throwing little girls who just want their flying unicorn, and ice cream too. It really doesn’t even rise to the level of amusing rhetoric, or, you know, very plausible new theories on personal space-time aura interference.
Even supposedly professional “debates” have become mere spectacle and cheap entertainment, none of them rising to the level of being educational. The only partial exception that comes to mind are the debates of William Lane Craig, but even then it is at best 50%. Craig is capable of arguing correctly, but I have yet to see any one of his opponents being able to do so.
The fact that Craig is a Protestant is quite astonishing to me, and in fact, I am now toying with the idea of writing to him to see if he would debate me on Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
He is certainly far more prepared than I am in things like knowing Bible verses (albeit probably from the wrong versions of the Bible), but that in itself is not an issue, because the point is the logical truth of Catholicism vs Protestantism. Not “winning”. That is, I have absolutely zero fear or anxiety about such a debate, if it were to take place, because my concern is not my ego or my need to “win”, but rather, simply to advance my (or his, or the observers’) understanding of the Universe and the God who created it.
Of course, against intentional deceiver and liars like Jay Dyer, then I do not deny that there is a level of pleasure I take in squashing their ego with the equivalent of a steam roller. But that is still merely secondary to the position of increasing the level of understanding of reality.
Anyway, that is my rant for today done.
One possible explanation for the difference of flow in space-time is that you, an Italian, spent an inordinate amount of time in England, when you always had the option of living in Italy. This is a violation of natural causality, resulting in you generating an unnatural and disruptive aura.
In other words, it’s your fault.
Wife’s comment: “See, he knows.”
Hi Giuseppe,
Just to point it out, Sophia actually is the Greek word for wisdom. Philosophy means friend of wisdom, or love of wisdom.
Cheers,
Katie
Thanks Katie, you are correct.
The Greek guy who told me the “sophia” part originally, was indeed well in his cups at the time, and while I knew sophia meant wisdom, I just assumed it was also related to “storia” in Italian which means both story and history (also closer to the truth of what most history we are told really is), which is not the case. At any rate, I do think that the origin of philosophy in its purest form is without doubt the discussions between men sitting around a campfire in primitive times and around a table with drinks later on. I also think back then wisdom in general was probably more sought after than it is today by a few orders of magnitude.
Or sitting around in armchairs smoking cigars and pipes.
If your surname is related to the “philo” part, then perhaps Sophia would be a great name for a little girl. I have a daughter named Abigail, after the character in the Old Testament known for her beauty and wisdom. Two wonderful traits indeed.
I have 4 daughters, but never liked the name Sofia. Probably because it was my grandmother’s name so I associate it with old age mostly.
And yes, my surname originally was Filo, and we can trace it back to the returning crusaders, the family motto on our crest (minor nobles) is Omnia Vincit Amor, so yes, definitely related.