Philosophy is Important

"I first thought my opponent was simply playing devil"s advocate, which I welcomed." However, we seem to have entered a dark, cynical and skeptical world that denies knowledge." To be fair, Con made it clear from the beginning that her belief system is one that hates wisdom and knowledge, yet she believes her system to be as good, or better, than a rational philosophy based on both sensory input and reason." Better that one that is the culmination of some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, starting with Aristotle: minds like Aquinas, al-Farabi, Ibn Gabirol, Avicenna, Maimonides, Averroes, Eckhart and Ockham (yes of "Ockhams Razor" fame)." Not only do I believe I am in good company compared to my opponent, this rational philosophy has served the world extremely well for centuries. On the other had, a deep Internet search across multiple search engines for "misosophy" reveals about 15 results." Two-thirds of which are simple definitions." The remaining few are blogs from two individual proponents. Hence my characterization of pseudo-philosophy. My opponent might just as well deny the whole of knowledge and all it has allowed man to create." In fact, Con has made my case for me." She doesn't seem to understand there are three ways to discover knowledge: 1) by analyzing the language used; 2) by using experience and reason; and 3) (which she rejects, absolutely (while denying absolutes)) - that self-evident truths exist. While Con talks about using the first, she ignores basic word qualifiers, as stated below. She denies that experience and reason play any role. Many of the reasons for this last denial are demonstrated below, with my observations as to why this is so: My opponent has stated: " ..that my claims of things self evident are mere opinions [Con has no understanding of axioms; offers no rational argument to the contrary] ..truth is contradictory by definition [this is an example of denial of senses or reason (or both) as contributors to knowledge] ..compares absolute truths with unicorns? [denies senses; believes ideas of the mind are real objects (our ideas are the means by which we understand objects. They are not the object.)] ..denies examples of absolutes yet states they are "justified by definition" [skeptics must use reason to argue that reason doesn't exist] .."reality exists" is mere rhetoric [Con is confused about the limited role of language to understand reality (experience & reason, and axioms, also play an important role)] ..my use of the word "close" [as "opposed to 'exact,'] to qualify my position [to distinguish from dogma] is rejected by my opponent. [this seems to suggest that Con doesn't really believe what she seems to think is her strength - analyzing arguments based on their grammatical structure. ..self evident truths are not so [just because I say so - except it isn't me, it is Aristotle and his proteges] ..absolute truths also require reason and argument to defend [evident truths do; absolute truths (axioms) do not' ..example of science, and therefore reality in airplanes is sophistry [denies senses and reason and reality in general] ..man isn't timeless and universal [not a claim I made; the claim is for truth; for man, it is stated as an approximate goal] ..denies claim that man alone uses reason to make judgments [but offers no examples to the contrary] ..denies the claim that mans judgments should be in his own best interest... it is only opinion [& uses the absurd suggestion of man causing 'cute pandas" to be extinct could somehow be in mans best interest] ..believes that mans actions cannot be contradictory [only grammatical statements can be] ..asks by "what standard" is the best 'good' (in response to my statement - "The highest good is perfect being." "[Con seems not to see that the 'standard' for the highest good is clearly stated, in that brief sentence, as "perfect being" (man being the best he can be)]. My philosophy is based on the work of Aristotle and Aquinas and their many prot"g"s" and is analyzed by them through the lens of common experience and reason, over centuries. Anyone who is serious about philosophy should understand some of the basic concepts presented " like "axiomatic," "man" as a universal concept. But Con never claimed to be interested in philosophy so it seems safe to conclude she also has no interest in understanding these terms. In fact, she takes great delight in rejecting knowledge and the idea that man has the capacity to understand. I conclude with a Summary of Reality [from Little Errors in the Beginning, Mortimer J. Adler?] We live in a world of physical reality, a world of perceptual, objective, reality, a world in which our ideas, our thoughts, are the means by which we know reality (that are not ideas). Ideas are not that which (the object) we know, or even representations of real existence (ideas do not resemble the object). Ideas must have an object. We also live in a public world where we have common experiences of real, existing, objects of perception, as well as objects that are imaginary or remembered, etc. The latter are not objects of existence. And we live in a private, subjective world in which we alone are aware of our feelings, emotions, bodily sensations and experiences. (they are apprehended directly and do not serve as a means of apprehension of anything else), a world where ideas have existence in the mind but they are the means of apprehending objects, they are not the object themselves. Although subjective differences in perceptions do occur, they are usually easily accounted for and in spite of the differences, the object perceived remains the same. A cognitive idea (percepts, memories, images and concepts cannot, at the same time, be both that which we directly apprehend and that by which we apprehend something else. ------ Philosophy is Important. This debate exemplifies just how important!