All right, so I went to dictionary.com and found that philosophy is defined as "love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline."
What I want to know is what "philosophy" means to you, in your words, in your opinion. What role does it play in your life? How has your interest in it helped you grow as a person?
I read the definition and I actually didn't like it. It sounded narrow-minded. But analysing it better I agree with it. Well, I think some other words can be added.
Perhaps a good start is to analyse the famous quote: "I just know that I know nothing". This tells a lot about philosophy. One knows but also doesn't know. This is crucial for everyday's life. When taking decisions or judgements a person confronts ideas, builds his own philosophy, and sometimes feels unsure with the end result. Did I make the right decision? Well, perhaps so because of this and that. But, perhaps not because of this and that.
It's important to try to know ways of thinking, to put ones against others, to try to arrive at wiser conclusions, and also to doubt because the conclusions might be quite naive.
My Definition of Philosophy:
"To seek and obtain a higher level of understanding with the world through questioning and critically thinking about the world around me"
"Philosophy: (from Ancient Greek) Philo - Love ; Sophia - Wisdom."
Philosophy is the method and means of working out what it is to live a 'good' life. Since I am not religious, the various scriptures and teachings do not make up my moral and ethical stances and beliefs. Philosophy is how I 'examine' my lufe and, as Socrates said, an unexamined life is not worth living. Since I do not believe that either punishment or reward awaits me after death I need other methods of examining and deciding what I should expect of myself and how this relates to others. Philosophy is the method of doing this.
Regards
Chris
to me it's trying to figure out what's going on, and also to some extent, what i should do.
For me, philosophy is questioning your circumstances.
My girlfriend's answer:
Something from the game "Civilization".
| randy wrote: |
My girlfriend's answer:
Something from the game "Civilization". |
lol!! wow...It's hard to say ! But you are right...Philosohpy in terms are philos = love and sophia = wisdom so it means Love for Wisdom. To me phylosophy means a way of life...always questioning and wondering about one self and about the concept of the universe as well is something that's more than all the riches in the world...For me phylosophy also helped to understand deeply the art of combat or like the great Bruce Lee said: "There is no such thing as style as long as you understand the roots of combat", "As far as my life is concerned all this (his knowledge) I have learned from martial arts".Bruce Lee studied philosophy also.Phylosohpy means always doubting the things you see, to try to seek a deeper purpose, to feel the power of your own thoughts, to know that "I exist because I exist", to doubt even life itself...i don't know who it was (I forgot) but one said: "Even life is an ilussion !" "We actually aren't living at all, we're just ilussioning that we are"...So you see phylosophy is hard to describe in actual words ! Only when you find your purpose and understand your meaning, only when you'll be true to yourself, will you be able to fully understand the Love of Wisdom ! 
Philosophy has something to do with knowledge and at the same time, it's something else, because even knowledge can be doubted...
For me, philosophy is not about doubting. Philosophy is: watching the world and constructing ideas about how this world can be like it exists today.
Philosophy, love for wisdom, also love for knowledge. What can be know about this beautifull world, and also this cruel world, around us? How is it possible that something as cruel as this world is also so beautifull?
Philosophy is like watching the world from an opposite position and also knowing that you're part of it. It's some sort of paradox in itself.
(Like the name: sophia, wisdom, knowledge is connected to ratio, while philo, love, friendship, is connected to your feelings. Ratio and feelings: two opposite things)
Philosophy, you can't miss it if you want to give your life a deeper dimension...
(But philosophy isn't religion, because religion is about God, Who isn't part of this world. That's the difference between philosophy and religion: philosophy is seeking wisdom about this world, religion seeks knowledge of God.)
Yours,
JohanFH
| johanfh wrote: |
(But philosophy isn't religion, because religion is about God, Who isn't part of this world. That's the difference between philosophy and religion: philosophy is seeking wisdom about this world, religion seeks knowledge of God.)
Yours,
JohanFH |
I have to disagree with you definition of Religion. Religion is the seeking of knowledge of the Divine. *That divine can come in many forms. In buddhism the divine or buddha nature is in everyone and every thing. in Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam it is in God. In Wicca it is in the earth mother, in Druidism it is in a pantheon of gods and goddesses, in Taoism its in the Tao (or Way). If you read eastern philosophy at all there isn't a seperation, really, between religion and philosophy. They both come from the same roots (buddhism and taoism are both religion and philosophy). Even confusianism is, by some, viewed as a religion. Just because a religion doesn't seek Your God doesn't mean it isn't a religion.
[edit]*Disclamer: I do not understand all the religions I listed but have a basic idea of them. If I made any errors please feel free to correct me, but please be civil about it.[/edit] | johanfh wrote: |
| Philosophy has something to do with knowledge and at the same time, it's something else, because even knowledge can be doubted... |
Not in philosophy. Epistemology holds that knowledge is true. Belief can be wrong, but knowledge is, by definition, correct.
| Quote: |
| For me, philosophy is not about doubting. Philosophy is: watching the world and constructing ideas about how this world can be like it exists today. |
Hmmm...philosophy has to be, I think, defined in some particular terms. I'll attempt a definition myself....
A system of critical, systematic and rational thought and argument which is non-empirical, (doesn't rely on experiments and observations), grounded in formal logic and whose scope is the absolutely fundamental reason for, and of, all things.
That's my definition and it is important to note the emboldened terms which, I think, are both characteristic and vital components.
Regards
Chris | missdixy wrote: |
All right, so I went to dictionary.com and found that philosophy is defined as "love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline."
What I want to know is what "philosophy" means to you, in your words, in your opinion. What role does it play in your life? How has your interest in it helped you grow as a person? |
I'd say it's the daily seeing and being aware. I'd say it's not about books, what you read, or what people tell you. All the philosophy books are just ideas that people had. It's old. It's the past. Truth, love, that is active present. Philosophy is active present. It's also a word loaded with too much crap. I don't like using it. Philosophy is love. Intelligence. Not book knowledge. Not thought.
M | moworks2 wrote: |
I'd say it's the daily seeing and being aware. I'd say it's not about books, what you read, or what people tell you. All the philosophy books are just ideas that people had. It's old. It's the past. Truth, love, that is active present. Philosophy is active present. It's also a word loaded with too much crap. I don't like using it. Philosophy is love. Intelligence. Not book knowledge. Not thought.
M |
Err...you are getting too hung up on the Philos part of the word. Yes, it does literally translate as 'Love of Knowledge'. How do you separate intelligence from book knowledge and thought ?
How do you develop a coherent philosophy of your own without at least considering what other philosophers have thought, written and developed (in books) ? Surely that approach would mean that you were condemned to continually repeat the mistakes of previous philosophers and continually re-invent areas of philosophy which have already been well developed previously ? Book knowledge, as you call it, is one of the defining characteristics of the human animal. We are the only animal that can pass knowledge on to other members of the species without them having to directly observe us and learn by repetition of our actions. Book knowledge is more formally known as a form of extelligence - as opposed to intelligence which is the processes and knowlegde within the brain. Extelligence describes the cultural and social information sources available to us via books, art, legends, stories, DVDs, videos etc etc. Not to make use of extelligence will inevitably cripple the intelligence since human knowledge has long since surpassed the stage where any individual can know it all, or work it out from first principles.
You cannot take the 'love' part of the word and separate it from the object of that love - knowledge. Philosophy is the examination of the world around you and the attempt to understand it...love in itself it not much use in this process since love is an emotional attachment and does not imply or even require the acquisition or application of knowledge at all....
Regards
ChrisFor me, I find your result from Dictionary.com to be pretty concise and adequate for describing the role of philosophy in my life.
I believe, much like Thoreau, that there exists a fundamental difference between the Philosopher and the scholar of Philosophy. Scholars are primarily exposed to philosophical texts and through great intellectual struggle add elements of philosophy to their personal base of knowledge. The Scholar will be well disposed to hold discussions about both esoteric and exoteric philosophical doctrine.
Meanwhile, the philosopher is not concerned as greatly with the accumulation of knowledge as to the development of great wisdom through experience. This is why many philosophers are known to have 'lived their philosophy.' When read discerningly, much philosophical literature can plausibly be interpreted as codes of mental and physical conduct.
Ultimately, it would be pleasant to find ourselves more concerned with the impact of philosophy on ourselves than with the philosophical viewpoints of others. I think we can agree that it is unlikely for there to be a biological predisposition toward any philosophy, and that our past experiences to a large degree dictate our understanding. Given the vast possibility for alternate experiences, we should expect to see a great deal of variety in the beliefs of others, and this is refreshing!
Colin
To me philosophy is the encapsulation of an individuals perspective of the environment in which they reside.
As a perspective it will contain an individual's ideas about what is good and what is bad, what is wrong and what is right etc. etc. It may also include their views on better alternatives.
As it is essentially just an opinion, it is as Bikerman said "Non-Empirical." However, I would not go so far as to say that it must have other criteria.
Once a philosophy is debuted in public it will be subjected to the rigors of critique, and will be called upon to defend its position from competing views. I would therefore contend that while the well known philosophies have stood the test of time and are as a result | Bikerman wrote: |
| critical, systematic and rational ... and grounded in formal logic |
this is not necessarily the case.
A philosophy could be the antithesis of these things, yet it could still be loved and followed by the individual who holds to it. Such a philosophy however it would be given no credence by others, and thus fade to obscurity.
A philosopher is therefore an individual who actively develops and champions their own philosophy.
A scholar is an individual who interprets and critiques the philosophies of others. | Asgardsfall wrote: |
A philosophy could be the antithesis of these things, yet it could still be loved and followed by the individual who holds to it. Such a philosophy however it would be given no credence by others, and thus fade to obscurity.
A philosopher is therefore an individual who actively develops and champions their own philosophy. |
Hmm...according to this, then, to be a philosopher one must actively champion a particular philosophy which (s)he subscribes to. If one has a philosopher which has been developed but does not then seek to pass it one does that exclude one from being a philosopher ? Is it necessary to be an evangelist ?
Chris.I am guilty of missing out commas (as I so often am).
To me a philosopher actively develops(comma 
) and champions their own ideas. This can include ideas which have been thought of before, but a person must rationalise them into their own view of the world and be able to explain and defend their "fit".
By champion, I mean, an individual must be able to answer questions about their philosophy. There must be answers to questions posed. An answer makes an attempt to explain the individuals position (soundly or unsoundly). It cannot be a statement of faith. A person who answers in this manner is something other than a Philosopher.
Whether the details of the answer are to the satisfaction of the questioner is however irrelevant, as is the fact that no questions may ever be asked.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| If one has a philosopher which has been developed but does not then seek to pass it one does that exclude one from being a philosopher ? |
Not at all, in fact, that was part of the point I was trying to make with regards to my later comments. Just because a philosophy can be written off as illogical nonsense in the public arena, or in fact it may not even be known, so long as an individual has gathered and constructed their ideas, and is capable of defending them, this can be deemed a philosophy, and they a Philosopher (no comments can however be made as to the quality of longevity of their work).
Incidentally I would include an Evangelist amongst a group of people who actively champion the ideas of others, with a leaning towards blind acceptance of the ideas. | Asgardsfall wrote: |
By champion, I mean, an individual must be able to answer questions about their philosophy. There must be answers to questions posed. An answer makes an attempt to explain the individuals position (soundly or unsoundly). It cannot be a statement of faith. A person who answers in this manner is something other than a Philosopher.
Whether the details of the answer are to the satisfaction of the questioner is however irrelevant, as is the fact that no questions may ever be asked.
|
OK...I'd accept that.
| Quote: |
| Incidentally I would include an Evangelist amongst a group of people who actively champion the ideas of others, with a leaning towards blind acceptance of the ideas. |
Yes, quite right. I was sloppy in my choice of terms. I should probably have said proponent.
Chris.
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in totalphilosophy fulfills needs for those whose needs cannot be filled in either religion or ethics.
| peaceninja wrote: |
| philosophy fulfills needs for those whose needs cannot be filled in either religion or ethics. |
Whilst I would accept that as true in some cases, it is not correct in a general sense for two reasons.
1) Ethics is a branch of philosophy
2) The metaphysical branch of philosophy includes the philosophy of religion and it is quite possible for a religious believer to also be a philosopher - there are many historical examples.
Regards
Chris | peaceninja wrote: |
| philosophy fulfills needs for those whose needs cannot be filled in either religion or ethics. |
Bikerman is quite correct in that Ethics is a Branch of Philosophy.
Why does philosophy have to be at odds with religion. They are not opposing forces, or at least they don't have to be. As I said in an earlier posts, many eastern religions are also considered philosophies and are studied as both.
Even Socrates used philosophy as a way to explain and think about religion. There doesn't have to be such a rift between the two disciplines, as they are more similar than most other disciplines. | Bikerman wrote: |
| moworks2 wrote: |
I'd say it's the daily seeing and being aware. I'd say it's not about books, what you read, or what people tell you. All the philosophy books are just ideas that people had. It's old. It's the past. Truth, love, that is active present. Philosophy is active present. It's also a word loaded with too much crap. I don't like using it. Philosophy is love. Intelligence. Not book knowledge. Not thought.
M |
Err...you are getting too hung up on the Philos part of the word. Yes, it does literally translate as 'Love of Knowledge'. How do you separate intelligence from book knowledge and thought ?
How do you develop a coherent philosophy of your own without at least considering what other philosophers have thought, written and developed (in books) ? Surely that approach would mean that you were condemned to continually repeat the mistakes of previous philosophers and continually re-invent areas of philosophy which have already been well developed previously ? Book knowledge, as you call it, is one of the defining characteristics of the human animal. We are the only animal that can pass knowledge on to other members of the species without them having to directly observe us and learn by repetition of our actions. Book knowledge is more formally known as a form of extelligence - as opposed to intelligence which is the processes and knowlegde within the brain. Extelligence describes the cultural and social information sources available to us via books, art, legends, stories, DVDs, videos etc etc. Not to make use of extelligence will inevitably cripple the intelligence since human knowledge has long since surpassed the stage where any individual can know it all, or work it out from first principles.
You cannot take the 'love' part of the word and separate it from the object of that love - knowledge. Philosophy is the examination of the world around you and the attempt to understand it...love in itself it not much use in this process since love is an emotional attachment and does not imply or even require the acquisition or application of knowledge at all....
Regards
Chris |
Hi Chris, sorry it took so long to get back to you,...work has been nuts lately...anyway...
The question posed by missdixy was..."What I want to know is what "philosophy" means to you, in your words, in your opinion. What role does it play in your life? How has your interest in it helped you grow as a person?"
She didn't ask me to develop a coherent philosophy...if you're in college and studying philosophy ok...but this isn't college...
I understand your line of thinking about not repeating the past by ignoring what went before...but that goes well for the technical side of our life, not the daily living...psychologically...
I don't live my life according to Hegel or Hume or Jesus or Moses or Buddha or Sartre or Marx...they described life according to them...their ideas are the past, i don't live my life according to a system of thinking...life is active present...ideals are relics of the past...
Philosophy, for me, is love of truth...truth is also active present like love, humility...I'm not living life according to any philosopher...
When I studied philosophy in school the one thing that kept sticking out to me was the fact that none of it mattered...no matter how brilliant, no matter how sane and complete the work was it didn't matter in day to day life...most of the time people didn't understand what was being said because it was too complicated for everyone...and even when plain as day, you can just reject...
love, for me, is not anything to do with emotion...emotion too is based on the past...experience, memories,...love is active present...I'm not sure I can explain that fully, hell, this is a forum, I've always felt that important issues need to be discussed face to face, so one can look into another's eyes, that relationship is primal...
I think your position is quite normal in this day...we think the more info we have via our teachers, the internet, books, dvd's etc., the more intelligent we are...it's what we have been taught since we've been born...compare, judge, who is or has more, what is less...but all that is academic and if you're taking university classes that's how it goes...
intelligence for me is being able to drop the past, being able to think for ones self...just imagine for a moment, if you'd indulge me, that you'd never heard of jesus or hegel or sartre, that you'd never read any book, if someone asked you what was important about life, how would you go about it? what would be your first step?...
for all the knowledge we have in our books, libraries,...for all the so called intelligence we have via our organized religions, for all the intelligence you seem to be defending via our experience of the past we are in a sorry state as a species...
when I look around I see a lot of people suffering, more suffering than not...poverty, hunger, disease, war,...it's what we're living every day...political corruption, a system that has failed but we're still being led by it god knows why...all the religious organizations have failed as well...we live our daily lives in fear of losing our jobs, of being homeless, of not being to feed ourselves or our families...
for all the so called intelligence we have i think we are living our lives with our values all upside down...how did our economic health become more important than life itself, more important than food and medicine for all in need?...
the original poster asked about philosophy and what it means to me, in my own words and not according to someone else...what went before has not helped at all except for our technological knowledge...we remain a violent, greedy, jealous, murdering species only concerned with our own petty selves...I think one must abandon the past and not live according to someone else's thought or tradition...that is intelligence...that is first step in being able to think on one's own, to discover what thinking is is the first step...i wonder if you've ever questioned it?...
how can one discover anything new if the brain is loaded down with experience, memory, words, from the past?...sure, the mind clings to the past...it thinks it is security, it is the known...but the known is dead and the past will not help us understand the present...it is an obstacle to understanding...
I think the beauty of life, love, the timeless is only to be experienced in the active present...that means the brain must be quiet, must stop its endless chatter...then one can experience the new...then one is living life and death every moment...
Kind regards...
M | moworks2 wrote: |
Hi Chris, sorry it took so long to get back to you,...work has been nuts lately...anyway... |
NP...glad you now have time 
| Quote: |
The question posed by missdixy was..."What I want to know is what "philosophy" means to you, in your words, in your opinion. What role does it play in your life? How has your interest in it helped you grow as a person?"
She didn't ask me to develop a coherent philosophy...if you're in college and studying philosophy ok...but this isn't college...
I understand your line of thinking about not repeating the past by ignoring what went before...but that goes well for the technical side of our life, not the daily living...psychologically... |
I would disagree. As humans we share an awful lot. Feelings and thoughts that we may think are unique to us are rarely anything of the sort. The sort of problems, questions, decisions/choices we face in daily life have been faced by many people over history and it is often useful to see how they approached the problems, answered the questions or made the choice.
| Quote: |
| I don't live my life according to Hegel or Hume or Jesus or Moses or Buddha or Sartre or Marx...they described life according to them...their ideas are the past, i don't live my life according to a system of thinking...life is active present...ideals are relics of the past... |
Again I disagree. Ideas are ideas...whether old or new. I doubt there are any completely new ideas in your life (or anyone's for that matter). The thoughts and ideas of philosophers may well, in some cases, have been improved on, superseded or refuted. The point is that it is still useful to read their ideas because, if nothing else, it can serve as an early warning should you find yourself thinking along the lines that they did - it may be possible to spot a problem or flaw in the line of thinking without the need to spend months/years finding it for yourself.
Also, philosophy has certain fundamental questions which are key and which anyone thinking seriously about life will inevitably encounter. Notions of Freedom, Justice, Truth - these are all philosophical concepts which have been considered and 'worked on' by many great minds over history. Their thoughts and conclusions are always worth reading and often invaluable in straightening out your own thoughts and getting a true understanding of the issues and problems involved. I'll elaborate this further in a while.
| Quote: |
| Philosophy, for me, is love of truth...truth is also active present like love, humility...I'm not living life according to any philosopher... |
You almost certainly are. Philosophers have considered most of the possible ways of living from extreme scepticism (believing nothing at all) to extreme dogmatism (the opposite) and most possibilities in between.
Truth is truth - historical truth is just as much truth as contemporary truth so I disagree about the 'active present' nature. What do you mean by love of truth, for example? Is truth always a good and desirable thing in all situations?
| Quote: |
| When I studied philosophy in school the one thing that kept sticking out to me was the fact that none of it mattered...no matter how brilliant, no matter how sane and complete the work was it didn't matter in day to day life...most of the time people didn't understand what was being said because it was too complicated for everyone...and even when plain as day, you can just reject... |
You must have had a very poor teacher then. Nothing is as relevant and important to everyday life as the basics of philosophy. Truth, love - unless you know what you mean and what others mean by those concepts then you (as in 'one', not you personally) are in danger of constructing a world-view that is either self-delusional or extremely solipsist and also misconceived. At best one will have difficulty expressing oneself.
| Quote: |
| love, for me, is not anything to do with emotion...emotion too is based on the past...experience, memories,...love is active present...I'm not sure I can explain that fully, hell, this is a forum, I've always felt that important issues need to be discussed face to face, so one can look into another's eyes, that relationship is primal... |
Emotion is based on the past? I would be interested to see you develop that. Emotion is a mental state that arises non consciously or subjectively. Like all mental processes it is shaped to some extent by previous experience and memory - but that is true of all mental processes. It can also be extremely focussed and based in the present...emotions such as fright., for example, are a reaction to circumstances in a very 'immediate'
or 'present' sense.
| Quote: |
| I think your position is quite normal in this day...we think the more info we have via our teachers, the internet, books, dvd's etc., the more intelligent we are...it's what we have been taught since we've been born...compare, judge, who is or has more, what is less...but all that is academic and if you're taking university classes that's how it goes... |
I certainly think that more info is better than less. I can think of no circumstance or situation when I would prefer ignorance to knowledge - even, for example, in the event of having a terminal illness - I would rather know. The reason for studying what others have written is simple - the amount of information now in the world is far more, even in one specialist field, than any single person can deal with.
| Quote: |
| intelligence for me is being able to drop the past, being able to think for ones self...just imagine for a moment, if you'd indulge me, that you'd never heard of jesus or hegel or sartre, that you'd never read any book, if someone asked you what was important about life, how would you go about it? what would be your first step?... |
I would probably make a series of stupid or poorly structured statements, since, without reading a book, my knowledge of life would be limited to what I had seen and done for myself. I would, therefore, be extremely limited in both my scope of understanding and my ability to imagine, conceptualise and visualise. It is not something I would welcome. My answer would probably be expressed in very limited vocabulary, since without reading one doesn't really develop and extend one's vocabulary and range of expression, and my concepts would inevitably revolve around experiences I had personally had or witnessed others having, which would, I think, be intolerably limiting.
| Quote: |
| for all the knowledge we have in our books, libraries,...for all the so called intelligence we have via our organized religions, for all the intelligence you seem to be defending via our experience of the past we are in a sorry state as a species... |
But this is an illogical progression, surely. Are you suggesting that a bit more ignorance would make the world a better place? History tends to teach the opposite lesson. Ignorance is one of the major planks necessary to build systems such as Fascism. Racism and other forms of intolerance and bigotry go hand in hand with ignorance. Show me an extreme racist and I will show you an ignorant person. Show me an uneducated group of people and I will show you a potential fascist breeding ground.
| Quote: |
| when I look around I see a lot of people suffering, more suffering than not...poverty, hunger, disease, war,...it's what we're living every day...political corruption, a system that has failed but we're still being led by it god knows why...all the religious organizations have failed as well...we live our daily lives in fear of losing our jobs, of being homeless, of not being to feed ourselves or our families... |
And who are the poor, hungry, disease-ridden and war-torn societies? The wealthy and comparatively 'intelligent' western countries? No. The fears that you (me), as a westerner, face on a daily basis are as nothing to those faced by a billion or so of our fellow-man. You say that you live in fear of homelessness and starvation? Really? I presume that you live in the southern hemisphere then?
| Quote: |
| for all the so called intelligence we have i think we are living our lives with our values all upside down...how did our economic health become more important than life itself, more important than food and medicine for all in need?... |
But you contradict yourself here. Where does the medicine come from? – Largely from the knowledge, research and book learning that you seem to feel so useless. How did the western countries manage to get beyond fears of starvation for the huge majority (in the UK I would say the entire population, apart from possibly those with extreme learning difficulties and no support network, the very young or very old who have somehow slipped through the net and the self-destructive who avoid help deliberately) ? One large factor was educational development of the population via compulsory schooling. I would agree that another factor would be exploitation of less developed countries, but increased literacy, numeracy and general education levels are hugely important.
| Quote: |
the original poster asked about philosophy and what it means to me, in my own words and not according to someone else...what went before has not helped at all except for our technological knowledge...we remain a violent, greedy, jealous, murdering species only concerned with our own petty selves...I think one must abandon the past and not live according to someone else's thought or tradition...that is intelligence...that is first step in being able to think on one's own, to discover what thinking is is the first step...i wonder if you've ever questioned it?...
|
Abandoning the past would be a crazy thing to do. Do you seriously think that you think on your own and do not live according to other's thoughts and traditions? Hmm...I think you are probably kidding yourself. Thinking for oneself is certainly something we should all do, but you confuse learning from others with not thinking for yourself...the two do not follow. Thinking for yourself and also denying yourself the resources and extelligence available simple means that you will, at best, eventually arrive at the sort of knowledge and conceptual framework that a 13th century peasant might have done, unless you are a particularly gifted person, in which case you might reach a standard comparable to, say, Newton. I prefer to take a short cut by learning from the works of those who have already considered in great detail basic questions which could take me months or years to work through myself from first principles.
| Quote: |
how can one discover anything new if the brain is loaded down with experience, memory, words, from the past?...sure, the mind clings to the past...it thinks it is security, it is the known...but the known is dead and the past will not help us understand the present...it is an obstacle to understanding... |
Actually the opposite is probably the case. New ideas arise from a juxtaposition of existing concepts. The more concepts you expose yourself to and the wider the range of opinions and thoughts you are familiar with, the more likely you are to be able to form a new relationship between existing ideas and concepts and form a new concept, or an original thought. If you don't know much to start with it is very unlikely that you will suddenly throw-up insightful and original thoughts. For one thing you are probably incapable of recognising an original concept since without knowing what is already out there you would have no way of distinguishing. For another thing your store of existing concepts and ideas would be both limited in quantity and limited in scope. If I can draw an analogy, imagine picking words out of a hat and throwing them together at random; occasionally a new sentence results which we will liken to a new concept or idea.
The greater your existing vocabulary (i.e. the greater the range of words) and the more actual words you have in the hat, the more chance there is of forming new and interesting sentences.
The person who has limited themselves to those words he has heard from his parents and friends at school is unlikely to form sentences which have not already been formed countless times before by other letter-slingers.
| Quote: |
| I think the beauty of life, love, the timeless is only to be experienced in the active present...that means the brain must be quiet, must stop its endless chatter...then one can experience the new...then one is living life and death every moment... |
I still cannot conceive what you mean by love, since you say it is nothing to do with emotion, but I understand emotion to be a key component in love. I cannot conceive of love in the abstract, devoid of emotional context and content...that, to me, is almost a contradiction in terms.
As for being quiet....sure...but that has nothing to do with whether you first read and learn all you can before the period of silence or simply trust to your internal wit and instinct to interpret what you experience.
To draw another analogy one can compare this to literally sitting quietly to (say) listen to birdsong. You cannot hear the birds whilst you are making a noise yourself and neither is it possible without focussing your attention.
I, however, would prefer to have read and listened and learned the different songs of the different birds beforehand so that I could identify the different songs and calls.
Regards
ChrisI think my favorite definition of Genius is this: Genius - One who masters what came before and then goes beyond it.
I cannot remember who said it first and I surely heard it in one of my philosophy classes in college (probably aethsetics). But the important thing to remember is the master of what came before. IF you look at the geniuses of history, they could all do what came before. Mozart, Beethoven, Picaso, Newton, Einstein. They all mastered the techniques, knowledge, etc. of their predicesors and then went beyond it and created something new.
If we ignore the past we are doomed to repeat it. If we live in the past we are continually repeating it. We must live in the present and remember the past for only then can we go beyond our limitations for a brighter future.
Hi Chris...maybe this will clarify some things...sorry if this doesn't read well, i just took your text to quote, i tried to quote your entire previous message but it wasn't working right or something...anyway...
| Quote: |
I would disagree. As humans we share an awful lot. Feelings and thoughts that we may think are unique to us are rarely anything of the sort. The sort of problems, questions, decisions/choices we face in daily life have been faced by many people over history and it is often useful to see how they approached the problems, answered the questions or made the choice.
|
Yes, it's obvious that human beings have many base things in common...take away the superficial differences like language, race, culture etc. and we share a lot...you wouldn't know it from the way we kill each other over religion, land, political/ideological differences...
| Quote: |
Again I disagree. Ideas are ideas...whether old or new. I doubt there are any completely new ideas in your life (or anyone's for that matter). The thoughts and ideas of philosophers may well, in some cases, have been improved on, superseded or refuted. The point is that it is still useful to read their ideas because, if nothing else, it can serve as an early warning should you find yourself thinking along the lines that they did - it may be possible to spot a problem or flaw in the line of thinking without the need to spend months/years finding it for yourself.
Also, philosophy has certain fundamental questions which are key and which anyone thinking seriously about life will inevitably encounter. Notions of Freedom, Justice, Truth - these are all philosophical concepts which have been considered and 'worked on' by many great minds over history. Their thoughts and conclusions are always worth reading and often invaluable in straightening out your own thoughts and getting a true understanding of the issues and problems involved. I'll elaborate this further in a while. |
I don't know anyone living life according to Hegel or Nietzsche or Sartre, do you?...how many people do you know who could tell you what truth is according to Sartre? and even if they told you, does it matter? Truth, like love, is active present...I wouldn't ask any philosopher to tell me what truth is, they can't, and I wouldn't ask some unknown person on an internet forum either...
we're just full of ideas, one needs to clear the brain of them to come upon the new...and that's a problem when you start thinking a little about it, how would you know it if it is new?...if you recognize it that means it's something you already knew...
| Quote: |
You almost certainly are. Philosophers have considered most of the possible ways of living from extreme scepticism (believing nothing at all) to extreme dogmatism (the opposite) and most possibilities in between.
Truth is truth - historical truth is just as much truth as contemporary truth so I disagree about the 'active present' nature. What do you mean by love of truth, for example? Is truth always a good and desirable thing in all situations? |
Again, I'm not living my life according to any philosopher, unless you say because I won't kill my fellow human beings and some philosopher said or wrote that someplace that it's wrong to kill people that I'm following his or her philosophy...but I don't think that's what you mean, is it?...also, you don't know anything about me nor I you...you assume a great deal...even with a profound respect for certain philosophers and their work I'd never live my life according to their ideas...that is death if nothing else...
| Quote: |
| You must have had a very poor teacher then. Nothing is as relevant and important to everyday life as the basics of philosophy. Truth, love - unless you know what you mean and what others mean by those concepts then you (as in 'one', not you personally) are in danger of constructing a world-view that is either self-delusional or extremely solipsist and also misconceived. At best one will have difficulty expressing oneself. |
It doesn't really matter...look around you...what effect are all the basics of philosophy having in Africa, the middle east, anywhere on the planet where people are living in fear?...politicians, elected by us, are killing wholesale...america, europe, asia, all sell arms for great profit...what are 'we' doing about it...nothing...where are the basics of philosophy in all that?...I think politicians and priests have constructed a world that is delusional, just look around...the world according to Bush or the islamic terrorists,...pick your madness...
| Quote: |
Emotion is based on the past? I would be interested to see you develop that. Emotion is a mental state that arises non consciously or subjectively. Like all mental processes it is shaped to some extent by previous experience and memory - but that is true of all mental processes. It can also be extremely focussed and based in the present...emotions such as fright., for example, are a reaction to circumstances in a very 'immediate'
or 'present' sense. |
If you didn't have memory you wouldn't have emotion...if you didn't have memory your experience would be forgotten to the past and you'd move on...memory is thought, thought is always old, the past,...it's how our brain functions...fright, in the moment, is not based on the past, is it?...your response to it might be, like being careful with fire or a dangerous animal, but fright and the response is like you said, immediate...the memory banks don't even have time to search about what to do, you just act...
| Quote: |
| I certainly think that more info is better than less. I can think of no circumstance or situation when I would prefer ignorance to knowledge - even, for example, in the event of having a terminal illness - I would rather know. The reason for studying what others have written is simple - the amount of information now in the world is far more, even in one specialist field, than any single person can deal with. |
Here again, I'm talking about our psychological knowledge and awareness, not technical...of course medicine, transportation, science is far more advanced today than a hundred years ago...
| Quote: |
| I would probably make a series of stupid or poorly structured statements, since, without reading a book, my knowledge of life would be limited to what I had seen and done for myself. I would, therefore, be extremely limited in both my scope of understanding and my ability to imagine, conceptualise and visualise. It is not something I would welcome. My answer would probably be expressed in very limited vocabulary, since without reading one doesn't really develop and extend one's vocabulary and range of expression, and my concepts would inevitably revolve around experiences I had personally had or witnessed others having, which would, I think, be intolerably limiting. |
Actually, I was thinking you would stop...you would pay attention...i wonder why you assume you'd become a blithering idiot...
I wouldn't be able to respond to you without proper communication skills, wouldn't be able to use a computer or find my way home without the brain being able to memorize and deduct...but thinking for yourself, that's always within grasp...I'm saying we are taught what to think and not how...we rarely ask ourselves a basic question like 'what is thinking?'
| Quote: |
But this is an illogical progression, surely. Are you suggesting that a bit more ignorance would make the world a better place? History tends to teach the opposite lesson. Ignorance is one of the major planks necessary to build systems such as Fascism. Racism and other forms of intolerance and bigotry go hand in hand with ignorance. Show me an extreme racist and I will show you an ignorant person. Show me an uneducated group of people and I will show you a potential fascist breeding ground.
|
I'm saying that even with all this intelligence we're in a sorry state...maybe we should turn and look elsewhere...we keep going down the same road...why not look up and see what other options we have?...you are just maintaining the status quo, i say lets abandon it and move on...fascists, and racists, and terrorists are being bred each and every day despite all the so called intelligence in the world...intelligence according to who?...
| Quote: |
| And who are the poor, hungry, disease-ridden and war-torn societies? The wealthy and comparatively 'intelligent' western countries? No. The fears that you (me), as a westerner, face on a daily basis are as nothing to those faced by a billion or so of our fellow-man. You say that you live in fear of homelessness and starvation? Really? I presume that you live in the southern hemisphere then? |
What's the difference where I live? It is my responsibility that people all over this planet are suffering as it is yours. I wonder if you see that. Just because I have enough to eat doesn't make people starving over half the planet alright,...you can't be saying that, are you? Here in France, one of your supposedly intelligent countries, one major aid group will give out 75 million free meals this year to people who don't have enough. That's only one agency. And a recent poll, within the last two weeks, revealed that 48 percent of the people live in fear of losing their jobs or of being homeless. Do you have any idea how many are homeless and hungry in America?...It doesn't sound like you do.
A country can't be intelligent. People in rich countries do a lot of stupid things. Look at Bush and his war in Iraq. Ok, he's not so smart, maybe he's a bad example. But his administration has tons of so called intelligent people working for him. Degrees from all the top schools no doubt. I guess one needs to define 'intelligence'. The 'hawk' plan for installing democracy in arab countries is a miserable failure.
| Quote: |
| But you contradict yourself here. Where does the medicine come from? – Largely from the knowledge, research and book learning that you seem to feel so useless. How did the western countries manage to get beyond fears of starvation for the huge majority (in the UK I would say the entire population, apart from possibly those with extreme learning difficulties and no support network, the very young or very old who have somehow slipped through the net and the self-destructive who avoid help deliberately) ? One large factor was educational development of the population via compulsory schooling. I would agree that another factor would be exploitation of less developed countries, but increased literacy, numeracy and general education levels are hugely important. |
I see, so you're saying that pharmaceutical company profits are more important than stopping aids in Africa? That's one example of people like me and you putting profit before people. I'm not sure where the contradiction is...people are now throw away, disposable,...and politicians will sacrifice thousands, hundreds of thousands to win an election, improve the economy, bolster their ideologies before an electorate...
You really seem to take lightly those that 'slip through the net'...I wonder how you'd feel if you were one of them...
I never said knowledge was useless. I said technological knowledge has it's place. Intelligence is something else, no? Education is a wonderful thing. But the benefits all depend on what's done with it.
| Quote: |
| Abandoning the past would be a crazy thing to do. Do you seriously think that you think on your own and do not live according to other's thoughts and traditions? Hmm...I think you are probably kidding yourself. Thinking for oneself is certainly something we should all do, but you confuse learning from others with not thinking for yourself...the two do not follow. Thinking for yourself and also denying yourself the resources and extelligence available simple means that you will, at best, eventually arrive at the sort of knowledge and conceptual framework that a 13th century peasant might have done, unless you are a particularly gifted person, in which case you might reach a standard comparable to, say, Newton. I prefer to take a short cut by learning from the works of those who have already considered in great detail basic questions which could take me months or years to work through myself from first principles. |
Learning is active present, knowledge is memory, thought, again, based on the past. You should look at this for yourself. Really, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. And if you do look for yourself or not is your business. There's a huge difference between learning and knowledge.
| Quote: |
Actually the opposite is probably the case. New ideas arise from a juxtaposition of existing concepts. The more concepts you expose yourself to and the wider the range of opinions and thoughts you are familiar with, the more likely you are to be able to form a new relationship between existing ideas and concepts and form a new concept, or an original thought. If you don't know much to start with it is very unlikely that you will suddenly throw-up insightful and original thoughts. For one thing you are probably incapable of recognising an original concept since without knowing what is already out there you would have no way of distinguishing. For another thing your store of existing concepts and ideas would be both limited in quantity and limited in scope. If I can draw an analogy, imagine picking words out of a hat and throwing them together at random; occasionally a new sentence results which we will liken to a new concept or idea.
The greater your existing vocabulary (i.e. the greater the range of words) and the more actual words you have in the hat, the more chance there is of forming new and interesting sentences.
The person who has limited themselves to those words he has heard from his parents and friends at school is unlikely to form sentences which have not already been formed countless times before by other letter-slingers. |
I question if new ideas could possibly come from existing concepts. I think some people have a natural ability to open themselves to the new, to make themselves available. Maybe it is insight. I wonder what Einstein would say about his theory of relativity. Did he come upon it or did it come to him?
| Quote: |
I still cannot conceive what you mean by love, since you say it is nothing to do with emotion, but I understand emotion to be a key component in love. I cannot conceive of love in the abstract, devoid of emotional context and content...that, to me, is almost a contradiction in terms.
As for being quiet....sure...but that has nothing to do with whether you first read and learn all you can before the period of silence or simply trust to your internal wit and instinct to interpret what you experience.
|
No one can tell you what love is...the most you could say is what it's not. Approach it negatively. Like, is jealousy love? No?...what does it mean when you say you love your country or car or girlfriend or boyfriend...is it because they make you feel secure? is that love? is it because you possess them? is that love?...
You know something Chris, reading all this I just feel like there's no real communication going on between us. I feel like you are defending western philosophy. You have this position, certain values that for whatever reason make sense to you. That's great, I'm not knocking it or you. It's just when trying to have any kind of meaningful dialogue, any kind of communication, if the two people talking are each defending something, an opinion, whatever, then no communication takes place.
Personally, I've got nothing to defend. I don't have a position. All I know is that we are both conditioned. I see it in me, I wonder if you see it in yourself. The brain is conditioned from day one and seeing it, I think, is the first step toward freedom. I think learning is active present and one must be one's own teacher and student. It's a process that never stops.
I'd like to think that humans can change, that we can live together without killing ourselves. Until now all the political and religious attempts have failed. Philosophy has had no impact. So I'm thinking ok, what do humans have to do to change. That's why, years ago, I looked around and saw for myself that nothing man has done so far has proven effective. We are the same band of violent murderers we were a thousand years ago. Even worse! Thanks to our marvelous technology we can now kill hundreds of thousands of people with the push of a button.
Again, I think the original question in this post was provocative because it sounds so innocent and simple. Then all the responses come and nothing is based on a persons own experience. It's all this repetition. Other people's thought for a response. We are all mostly living second hand. Do you see that? I really like leaving the little box handed down to me by my parents generation and those that came before. It's such a small space to live in and we need lots of space. I guess I'm a bit claustrophobic.
kind regards...
M
Ps. I love the critical and creative thinking chart. That's a perfect example of the little box we're put into.[/quote] | Shike wrote: |
I think my favorite definition of Genius is this: Genius - One who masters what came before and then goes beyond it.
I cannot remember who said it first and I surely heard it in one of my philosophy classes in college (probably aethsetics). But the important thing to remember is the master of what came before. IF you look at the geniuses of history, they could all do what came before. Mozart, Beethoven, Picaso, Newton, Einstein. They all mastered the techniques, knowledge, etc. of their predicesors and then went beyond it and created something new.
If we ignore the past we are doomed to repeat it. If we live in the past we are continually repeating it. We must live in the present and remember the past for only then can we go beyond our limitations for a brighter future. |
One wonders how relevant this comparison is...all the people you mention are rare examples of people born with talents that just far exceed the norm...there are other examples of course...one of my favorites is Django Rheinhardt...forgive me if i've butchered the spelling of his name...
also, this often repeated 'if we ignore the past we are doomed to repeat it'...it doesn't mean much...look around at the holocaust movies, museums, books, and on and on...that hasn't stopped the violence, it hasn't taught us anything...the butchering, the murder, oppression, racism, it continues unabated...
MI have a question moworks2
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I'd like to think that humans can change, that we can live together without killing ourselves. Until now all the political and religious attempts have failed. Philosophy has had no impact. So I'm thinking ok, what do humans have to do to change. |
Have you thought about or begun to form an opinion as to an answer to this question? | moworks2 wrote: |
One wonders how relevant this comparison is...all the people you mention are rare examples of people born with talents that just far exceed the norm...there are other examples of course...one of my favorites is Django Rheinhardt...forgive me if i've butchered the spelling of his name...
also, this often repeated 'if we ignore the past we are doomed to repeat it'...it doesn't mean much...look around at the holocaust movies, museums, books, and on and on...that hasn't stopped the violence, it hasn't taught us anything...the butchering, the murder, oppression, racism, it continues unabated...
M |
I wonder how many people, who are doing the oppressing, actually paid attention to that point in our history ... or believed that they were right in trying to eliminate groups of people who are different.
What the problem is that you are addressing is what do we see in what went before. "Are we outraged at what went before, or do we secretly applaud them." We are currently seeing racism, oppression, murder, etc. because a vast majority of people in this world only see "skin" deep. They only see the differences, none of the similarities. It is when people start looking for similarities that many of these problems will start to dissipate. | Asgardsfall wrote: |
I have a question moworks2
| moworks2 wrote: | | I'd like to think that humans can change, that we can live together without killing ourselves. Until now all the political and religious attempts have failed. Philosophy has had no impact. So I'm thinking ok, what do humans have to do to change. |
Have you thought about or begun to form an opinion as to an answer to this question? |
Yes, I've thought about it. Opinion doesn't count for much. One must come upon this or it comes to you if you're open, ready for it. Maybe this is again an instance where you have to approach understanding the situation from the negative. Not, What should I do, but What shouldn't I do...?
What do you think?...
Part of the solution lies in the question. Our thought is the main player here, devolving down into chaos...perhaps it has always been that. Maybe our thought is screwed up. How we think. What we think. Thoughts values are all upside down.
MMoworks....there is a lot in that posting and to do it justice I will need some time to consider my reply carefully. Please don't think I'm ignoring it as I have a lot on at the moment. I promise to come back to this in the detail it merits as soon as I can..
Chris.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Moworks....there is a lot in that posting and to do it justice I will need some time to consider my reply carefully. Please don't think I'm ignoring it as I have a lot on at the moment. I promise to come back to this in the detail it merits as soon as I can..
Chris. |
okie dokie chris...no worries...i hear you about being busy...it's not easy sometimes...i get bogged down too...
kind regards...
M | Asgardsfall wrote: |
I have a question moworks2
| moworks2 wrote: | | I'd like to think that humans can change, that we can live together without killing ourselves. Until now all the political and religious attempts have failed. Philosophy has had no impact. So I'm thinking ok, what do humans have to do to change. |
Have you thought about or begun to form an opinion as to an answer to this question? |
Hey, Asgardsfall, I'd like to add this if you don't mind...i think humanity needs to get straight what is and isn't important...is life, is caring for ourselves and the planet and everything on it of value or not?...do we want to continue living for profit and war and fear and just getting by while a tiny minority holds and controls all the planets wealth?...do we want people like candy rice leading countries, people who can suppose that a hanging can be done with dignity?...as an american living abroad i'm particularly horrified, disgusted, (there aren't words strong enough to show my state i'm afraid) by bush and his administration and the sickness in both spirit and deed that they've foisted upon the world...and to think that he spouts christ as some kind of example for good just makes my skin crawl...
i think people, for themselves, need to see how we are separated by religion, politics, nationalism, patriotism, etc...i think anything that separates, physical or psychological needs to be questioned because it creates conflict...but that won't happen if we continue to follow like sheep...
sadly, people like to be told what to do, they like leaders and so we have the world as it is today...i think politics is a broken system, totally corrupt, voting is a joke when it is manipulated the way it is even in so called democratic america...it's not important if you vote or not these days it's who's doing the counting that's really important...and besides, just because a majority of people vote for something doesn't make it right...look at the palestinians voting in a terrorist group as one example...
ok, i'm done...sorry if this comes off more like a rant, i'm feelin' a bit raw today...
MPhilosophy is The persuit of wisdom. But the question arises, "What kind of wisdom?"
Wisdom which is beyond the grasp of time and space... something like eternal wisdom. That is what the ancient cultures have looked for. To find out a thought process that will set us free. That will finally lighten our hearts from the burden of materialism. The world we live in is not perfect. In fact it is full of inconsistencies. "Truth wins" can apparently be proved wrong in the world we breath in.
We try to smile, we try to forget the dark side and make ourselves believe that everything is all right. All along, even in ancient times people have noticed this. So we have always been looking for a "Tao", a Way that will solve this puzzle.
This is what Philosophy is all about. In western philosophy Kent is the piller of light. He came closest to what we might call intellectual perfection. Going beyond happiness and sorrow is what he proposed...
In the east, we find the Upanishads, Gita and Yoga. Upanishads (Vedanta) hold knowledge as the highest good. Gita tells you to bring balance between work and wisdom. And Yoga shows you how to attain perfection following a scientific path.
Personally speaking, material needs and spiritual thirst... both need to be satisfied. Otherwise there cannot be balance, like two wings of a flying bird. You cannot fly with one wing. An unbalanced individual cannot bring happiness to himself or others.
Some riddles related to Karma or Work in Gita were solved after I read Carlos Castaneda. This is another kind of philosophy.
moworks2, Im not going to argue with your rant, as quite frankly i agree with most of it.
I asked my question because if you answered it, it exposes the fact that while you dont agree with many of the philosophies out there, you have in fact created your own. I dont know if you have thought about solutions.
Clearly a lone voice in a crowd will have little or no impact, however there is always the chance that the people standing nearby may hear.
Have you ever wondered how the first Mexican Wave at a statium is started. I imagine its with a couple of people who stand up and look like fools.
There is an interesting if somewhat lengthy thread in these forums here
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-49921.html which contains a great deal of thought and discussion from your peers on this board around the rights and wrongs of various political philosophies.
Its a shame its not being added too ... the competition is over but there's no reason the discussion can't continue. I would invite you, if you feel so motivated to perhaps think about an alternative system that would resolve some of the issues you point out, and post your ideas to this thread.
Regards. | moworks2 wrote: |
| I don't know anyone living life according to Hegel or Nietzsche or Sartre, do you?...how many people do you know who could tell you what truth is according to Sartre? and even if they told you, does it matter? Truth, like love, is active present...I wouldn't ask any philosopher to tell me what truth is, they can't, and I wouldn't ask some unknown person on an internet forum either... |
The same argument can be used about other subjects. How many people know even the basics of modern physics, for example? The point is, though, that if you want to do some meaningful work in physics then you need to know things like what Relativity and Quantum Physics are. The same applies, I think, in philosophy. Whilst I would not suggest that anyone adopt a philosophy wholesale and use it as a model for living life, I would say that an understanding of the works of the great philosophers can advance your own thinking in a way which would not be possible if you had to work it all out from first principles. | Quote: |
we're just full of ideas, one needs to clear the brain of them to come upon the new...and that's a problem when you start thinking a little about it, how would you know it if it is new?...if you recognize it that means it's something you already knew... |
I think it is rather different. A new idea can be seen as a new juxtaposition of existing concepts in a way which creates a new concept. In that sense it would not do to clear the brain of existing concepts since that would limit the scope for new juxtapositions and linkages.
| Quote: |
| Again, I'm not living my life according to any philosopher, unless you say because I won't kill my fellow human beings and some philosopher said or wrote that someplace that it's wrong to kill people that I'm following his or her philosophy...but I don't think that's what you mean, is it?...also, you don't know anything about me nor I you...you assume a great deal...even with a profound respect for certain philosophers and their work I'd never live my life according to their ideas...that is death if nothing else... |
I think the point I’m making is that you already seem to have a grounding in basic philosophy(ers) which I think is the basic requisite for then proceeding to form ‘new’ or personal philosophical concepts. Without a basic grounding I think it is next to impossible to do so in any meaningful way. The example I would give dates back to when I worked in a recording studio as an engineer.
One morning I had a session with a trumpet player who said that he would be playing jazz in the ‘Miles Davis’ style. Since I am a huge fan of Davis/Coltrane I was really looking forward to the session. I setup the studio with anticipation and waited. The guy arrived and, after the normal tweaking and re-positioning I retired to the control room and started the tape machine. What followed was 3 hours of the most miserable acoustic experience of my life. The guy had obviously realised that jazz often involves ‘throwing out’ ideas of conventional time and melodic progressions but had not realised that you needed to be competent in playing in conventional melodic sequences and time signatures before you were able to discard them or play around with them. What he produced was, frankly, just noise.
I think the same applies to philosophy. Without a basic grounding in the subject then it is unlikely that any personal philosophy will be much more than noise.
| Quote: |
| It doesn't really matter...look around you...what effect are all the basics of philosophy having in Africa, the middle east, anywhere on the planet where people are living in fear?...politicians, elected by us, are killing wholesale...america, europe, asia, all sell arms for great profit...what are 'we' doing about it...nothing...where are the basics of philosophy in all that?...I think politicians and priests have constructed a world that is delusional, just look around...the world according to Bush or the islamic terrorists,...pick your madness... |
But that simply indicates that philosophy is not being followed rather than highlighting some failure in philosophy itself. You cannot force people to adhere to philosophically valid actions, but that does not invalidate the subject itself. The internet is full of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo. That does not invalidate science as a field of study, rather the reverse I would argue, it points up the need for more science education.
| Quote: |
| If you didn't have memory you wouldn't have emotion...if you didn't have memory your experience would be forgotten to the past and you'd move on...memory is thought, thought is always old, the past,...it's how our brain functions...fright, in the moment, is not based on the past, is it?...your response to it might be, like being careful with fire or a dangerous animal, but fright and the response is like you said, immediate...the memory banks don't even have time to search about what to do, you just act... |
Hmm…I’m not sure that emotion is causally linked to memory in that way. There are examples of people who, through brain damage of one sort or another, have lost short and long term memory almost completely. I do not think you could say that they had also lost the capacity for emotion.
| Quote: |
| Actually, I was thinking you would stop...you would pay attention...i wonder why you assume you'd become a blithering idiot... |
I wouldn’t become an idiot but I would be deprived of a wealth of data which is relevant to the problem at hand.
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't be able to respond to you without proper communication skills, wouldn't be able to use a computer or find my way home without the brain being able to memorize and deduct...but thinking for yourself, that's always within grasp...I'm saying we are taught what to think and not how...we rarely ask ourselves a basic question like 'what is thinking?' |
I agree but my point is that to ask a meaningful question about thinking you need to have some basic idea about what you mean by thinking. I go back to the example of the trumpeter – you can only usefully choose to throw away convention if you know what convention is.
| Quote: |
| I'm saying that even with all this intelligence we're in a sorry state...maybe we should turn and look elsewhere...we keep going down the same road...why not look up and see what other options we have?...you are just maintaining the status quo, i say lets abandon it and move on...fascists, and racists, and terrorists are being bred each and every day despite all the so called intelligence in the world...intelligence according to who?... |
But once again this supposes that the state we are in is due to some failure in philosophy whereas I think it is rather a failure to heed the lessons of philosophy. I think that a grounding in philosophy is more likely to reduce intolerance and bigotry than otherwise.
| Quote: |
| What's the difference where I live? It is my responsibility that people all over this planet are suffering as it is yours. I wonder if you see that. Just because I have enough to eat doesn't make people starving over half the planet alright,...you can't be saying that, are you? Here in France, one of your supposedly intelligent countries, one major aid group will give out 75 million free meals this year to people who don't have enough. That's only one agency. And a recent poll, within the last two weeks, revealed that 48 percent of the people live in fear of losing their jobs or of being homeless. Do you have any idea how many are homeless and hungry in America?...It doesn't sound like you do. |
Now who is making assumptions? Yes I do have an awareness of the problems. I have been a member of Amnesty for 2 decades and spoken often about the problems of poverty, nationally and globally. My politics are decidedly left-wing and I have long been a critic of the global capitalist system. On a practical level I do what I can with contributions to various charities that seem to me to be addressing these issues meaningfully.
My point was that technological progress tends to reduce poverty and suffering and that increases in knowledge and understanding are more likely to be positive influences in this regard than ignorance is.
| Quote: |
| A country can't be intelligent. People in rich countries do a lot of stupid things. Look at Bush and his war in Iraq. Ok, he's not so smart, maybe he's a bad example. But his administration has tons of so called intelligent people working for him. Degrees from all the top schools no doubt. I guess one needs to define 'intelligence'. The 'hawk' plan for installing democracy in arab countries is a miserable failure. |
I agree but simply because intelligent people do stupid or nasty things does not lead me to conclude that the problem is with intelligence itself. Again I am a vocal and consistent critic of US foreign policy as you will see if you search out my postings in the news forum.
| Quote: |
| I see, so you're saying that pharmaceutical company profits are more important than stopping aids in Africa? That's one example of people like me and you putting profit before people. I'm not sure where the contradiction is...people are now throw away, disposable,...and politicians will sacrifice thousands, hundreds of thousands to win an election, improve the economy, bolster their ideologies before an electorate... |
No…again you are assuming that because I support technology that I also support the market capitalism that frames the applications of that technology. I don’t.
| Quote: |
| You really seem to take lightly those that 'slip through the net'...I wonder how you'd feel if you were one of them... |
I think that is uncalled for and inaccurate.
| Quote: |
| I never said knowledge was useless. I said technological knowledge has it's place. Intelligence is something else, no? Education is a wonderful thing. But the benefits all depend on what's done with it. |
Then we are in agreement. That is precisely my point – education is necessary and then one can consider it’s application, but start with education.
| Quote: |
| Learning is active present, knowledge is memory, thought, again, based on the past. You should look at this for yourself. Really, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. And if you do look for yourself or not is your business. There's a huge difference between learning and knowledge. |
I’m not sure about this classification system. ‘Active present’ would seem to be one of at least 4 possible classifications. The others, presumably, would be passive present, active past and passive past. Would that be accurate ?
[quote]I question if new ideas could possibly come from existing concepts. I think some people have a natural ability to open themselves to the new, to make themselves available. Maybe it is insight. I wonder what Einstein would say about his theory of relativity. Did he come upon it or did it come to him?
I cannot see how new ideas can do anything other than come from existing concepts. The example of Einstein is often used by people as an example of an ordinary person in a lowly job making a revolutionary step in science. The picture is false. Einstein was well educated in physics and whilst it is true that he worked as a clerk, he had already completed training as a physics teacher by then and in 1905 he obtained his PhD. He was hardly a non-scientist. As for how he came on relativity, the story goes that he imagined himself riding on a beam of light and then examined the consequences that followed. In that sense he went after the theory rather than the theory just ‘occuring’.
| Quote: |
| No one can tell you what love is...the most you could say is what it's not. Approach it negatively. Like, is jealousy love? No?...what does it mean when you say you love your country or car or girlfriend or boyfriend...is it because they make you feel secure? is that love? is it because you possess them? is that love?... |
But your point was that love is not ‘emotional’ and is (I assume) therefore rational. I cannot see how that could be.
| Quote: |
| You know something Chris, reading all this I just feel like there's no real communication going on between us. I feel like you are defending western philosophy. You have this position, certain values that for whatever reason make sense to you. That's great, I'm not knocking it or you. It's just when trying to have any kind of meaningful dialogue, any kind of communication, if the two people talking are each defending something, an opinion, whatever, then no communication takes place. |
]
That is a shame since I don’t share your pessimism. I don’t take the position of defending western philosophy per se. In fact I believe that we have been too closed to ideas in eastern philosophies and have missed out because of it.
| Quote: |
| Personally, I've got nothing to defend. I don't have a position. All I know is that we are both conditioned. I see it in me, I wonder if you see it in yourself. The brain is conditioned from day one and seeing it, I think, is the first step toward freedom. I think learning is active present and one must be one's own teacher and student. It's a process that never stops. |
I certainly agree that we are all conditioned and I have no problem seeing that in myself. This is unavoidable since I think it is inherent in living. I agree that one is one’s own teacher and that realising one’s presuppositions is the first stage in learning to overcome them.
| Quote: |
| I'd like to think that humans can change, that we can live together without killing ourselves. Until now all the political and religious attempts have failed. Philosophy has had no impact. So I'm thinking ok, what do humans have to do to change. That's why, years ago, I looked around and saw for myself that nothing man has done so far has proven effective. We are the same band of violent murderers we were a thousand years ago. Even worse! Thanks to our marvelous technology we can now kill hundreds of thousands of people with the push of a button. |
I don’t agree that philosophy has had no impact. Neither do I agree that we have made no progress morally. I would agree that man’s moral development has lagged behind technological advance and that this is a major problem, but I think progress has been made. Look at issues such as racism and sexism. Great progress has been made. Behaviour that would have been acceptable even a few decades ago is no longer acceptable. Society has moved on and, yes, I agree there is a long way to go yet but to say that no progress has been made is, I think, far too pessimistic.
| Quote: |
| Again, I think the original question in this post was provocative because it sounds so innocent and simple. Then all the responses come and nothing is based on a persons own experience. It's all this repetition. Other people's thought for a response. We are all mostly living second hand. Do you see that? I really like leaving the little box handed down to me by my parents generation and those that came before. It's such a small space to live in and we need lots of space. I guess I'm a bit claustrophobic. |
I think that we all filter things through our own experience. You may think that I just reflect and reiterate existing philosophical systems and thoughts and that this is all passive. I would argue that I take existing philosophies and apply my own experiences to them to arrive at a personal viewpoint which, although it certainly makes use of and is informed by classical and historical philosophy, is nonetheless unique to me and reflects my own experiences.
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | I'm saying that even with all this intelligence we're in a sorry state...maybe we should turn and look elsewhere...we keep going down the same road...why not look up and see what other options we have?...you are just maintaining the status quo, i say lets abandon it and move on...fascists, and racists, and terrorists are being bred each and every day despite all the so called intelligence in the world...intelligence according to who?... |
But once again this supposes that the state we are in is due to some failure in philosophy whereas I think it is rather a failure to heed the lessons of philosophy. I think that a grounding in philosophy is more likely to reduce intolerance and bigotry than otherwise.
|
That depends on whether the philosophy is purely intellectual and thus inferior, or rooted in something deeper. You use intellect and philosophy as if they were synonymous interchangeable terms. The Nazi’s had a purely intellectual philosophy. In Zen it is said that the intellect makes a wonderful servant, but a hideous master. That is why the primary objective of Zen, perhaps the most intellectually erudite of all the Buddhist traditions, is precisely to “destroy the intellect”.
This does not mean that the intellect is lobotomized in Zen, obviously, but rather put into its place, like taking a dog to canine obedience school. They like using canine obedience school analogies quite a bit. The intellect is great for driving your car and brushing your teeth, but the real impulses of life such as love and compassion, do not come from intellect at all. The intellect must bow down completely to these higher impulses of the soul and never try to supercede the supremacy of our inner spiritual core. If the intellect doesn’t know its place and attempts to take over completely, it becomes a violent monster, like the religion of intellect that the Nazi’s made.
| Bikerman wrote: |
As for how he came on relativity, the story goes that he imagined himself riding on a beam of light and then examined the consequences that followed. In that sense he went after the theory rather than the theory just ‘occuring’.
|
Actually, Einstein spent endless hours sitting on a bench in the park conducting “thought experiments”. Lots of scientists know this, but not one in a thousand actually has a clue as to what those thought experiments really were. In fact they were nothing more than contemplations of four dimensional geometry.
When I was 14, to my amazement, I actually found a book by Einstein in my high school library when I looked him up. The book was Four Dimensional Geometry. It is simply an extrapolation of Euclids axioms first from 2 to 3 dimensions, and then from 3 to 4. At the very end of the book he adds, rather nebulously, that all of the theory of Relativity was derived simply by adding an 11th axiom to the extrapolation of Euclid’s axioms in four dimensions.
I spent the next four months totally lost in my head, obsessively trying to visualize it all, and when I was done Relativity made geometric sense to me. If you draw a Feynman diagram for these things (one axis of time and one of space) you can reduce the explanation of almost all of the paradoxes to a simple 2D visualization.
Most scientists only know how to plug and chug the equations, virtually none can actually visualize what Einstein was getting at four dimensionally. | mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm saying that even with all this intelligence we're in a sorry state...maybe we should turn and look elsewhere...we keep going down the same road...why not look up and see what other options we have?...you are just maintaining the status quo, i say lets abandon it and move on...fascists, and racists, and terrorists are being bred each and every day despite all the so called intelligence in the world...intelligence according to who?... |
But once again this supposes that the state we are in is due to some failure in philosophy whereas I think it is rather a failure to heed the lessons of philosophy. I think that a grounding in philosophy is more likely to reduce intolerance and bigotry than otherwise.
|
That depends on whether the philosophy is purely intellectual and thus inferior, or rooted in something deeper. You use intellect and philosophy as if they were synonymous interchangeable terms. The Nazi’s had a purely intellectual philosophy. In Zen it is said that the intellect makes a wonderful servant, but a hideous master. That is why the primary objective of Zen, perhaps the most intellectually erudite of all the Buddhist traditions, is precisely to “destroy the intellect”. |
Hmm..I can see why you might think I was using them interchangeably (I snipped the previous exchange here for brevity), but it was not my intention. I was returning to the general point where this particular point started which was philosophy rather than intellect.
I think you are wrong about the Nazis. Their 'philosophy' was based on a jumble of things - bits of Hegel coupled with an elitist invention and bits of folklore/mythology loosely based on Schopenhaur's work and bits of occultism taken from the Thule society. In no sense was it an intellectually coherent philosophy. | Quote: |
This does not mean that the intellect is lobotomized in Zen, obviously, but rather put into its place, like taking a dog to canine obedience school. They like using canine obedience school analogies quite a bit. The intellect is great for driving your car and brushing your teeth, but the real impulses of life such as love and compassion, do not come from intellect at all. The intellect must bow down completely to these higher impulses of the soul and never try to supercede the supremacy of our inner spiritual core. If the intellect doesn’t know its place and attempts to take over completely, it becomes a violent monster, like the religion of intellect that the Nazi’s made. |
Not being a Buddhist I can't comment meaningfully on Zen philosophy. I've studied bits of it and your characterisation seems reasonable given the little I know. The context of this part of the discussion, however, is whether we should abandon philosophy as we know it because of it's failure to change the world and my point was that the failure is not one of philosophy but rather a failure to heed the lessons of philosophy. I still think that is valid. | Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | As for how he came on relativity, the story goes that he imagined himself riding on a beam of light and then examined the consequences that followed. In that sense he went after the theory rather than the theory just ‘occuring’.
|
Actually, Einstein spent endless hours sitting on a bench in the park conducting “thought experiments”. Lots of scientists know this, but not one in a thousand actually has a clue as to what those thought experiments really were. In fact they were nothing more than contemplations of four dimensional geometry.
........
I spent the next four months totally lost in my head, obsessively trying to visualize it all, and when I was done Relativity made geometric sense to me. If you draw a Feynman diagram for these things (one axis of time and one of space) you can reduce the explanation of almost all of the paradoxes to a simple 2D visualization. |
I don't follow this. A Feynman diagram is concerned with sub-atomic particles and is used to calculate probabilities of various interactions. Are you sure you mean 'Feynman diagram'?
Regards
ChrisPS - I can find no reference to the book you mention. Have you got a reference for it?
Chris.
| Bikerman wrote: |
PS - I can find no reference to the book you mention. Have you got a reference for it?
Chris. |
I haven't seen it in 25 years. I have no idea how to look up out of print books unless they are for sale by a used book search engine. That clearly has its limitations because here is a book, very possibly the one I read, but I can only find a reference to it in French. I can find no English translations of this book for sale:
La géométrie et l'expérience by Einstein Albert | mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | PS - I can find no reference to the book you mention. Have you got a reference for it?
Chris. |
I haven't seen it in 25 years. I have no idea how to look up out of print books unless they are for sale by a used book search engine. That clearly has its limitations because here is a book, very possibly the one I read, but I can only find a reference to it in French. I can find no English translations of this book for sale:
La géométrie et l'expérience by Einstein Albert |
No...that's not it. That's one of his early manuscripts 'Geometrie und Erfahrung' from 1921.
I don't think Einstein actually published any books as such....it must be one of his manuscripts or perhaps a third-party collection of his papers.
Never mind....I'll look out for it.
Chris. | Bikerman wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm saying that even with all this intelligence we're in a sorry state...maybe we should turn and look elsewhere...we keep going down the same road...why not look up and see what other options we have?...you are just maintaining the status quo, i say lets abandon it and move on...fascists, and racists, and terrorists are being bred each and every day despite all the so called intelligence in the world...intelligence according to who?... |
But once again this supposes that the state we are in is due to some failure in philosophy whereas I think it is rather a failure to heed the lessons of philosophy. I think that a grounding in philosophy is more likely to reduce intolerance and bigotry than otherwise.
|
That depends on whether the philosophy is purely intellectual and thus inferior, or rooted in something deeper. You use intellect and philosophy as if they were synonymous interchangeable terms. The Nazi’s had a purely intellectual philosophy. In Zen it is said that the intellect makes a wonderful servant, but a hideous master. That is why the primary objective of Zen, perhaps the most intellectually erudite of all the Buddhist traditions, is precisely to “destroy the intellect”. |
Hmm..I can see why you might think I was using them interchangeably (I snipped the previous exchange here for brevity), but it was not my intention. I was returning to the general point where this particular point started which was philosophy rather than intellect.
I think you are wrong about the Nazis. Their 'philosophy' was based on a jumble of things - bits of Hegel coupled with an elitist invention and bits of folklore/mythology loosely based on Schopenhaur's work and bits of occultism taken from the Thule society. In no sense was it an intellectually coherent philosophy.
|
I was trying to bring out the point that intellectually based philosophies are inferior. The intellect is pretty much helpless in the face of issues like love and morality. Not that the intellect isn’t to be put to full use when the time is appropriate, but it is the wrong tool for the job in dealing with man’s most pressing and profound issues.
Another way of looking at this is to compare IQ and EQ. I saw a News Hour segment (PBS evening news) where psychologists had come up with a standardized test for EQ. They did a study of CEO’s and money market managers and found that the revenue of the divisions or corporations they ran was closely correlated to their EQ, and that EQ was more than twice as important as creativity and IQ combined.
I remember reading about another study where three groups of children were run through a wide range of skills tests. It was found that high EQ and highly creative children could function almost as well as the high IQ children at IQ intensive tasks. However, the high IQ children fell completely on their faces as compared with the other two groups when performing tasks required a lot of EQ or creativity. Even the highly creative children faltered somewhat on high EQ tasks, whereas the high EQ children could perform almost as well as the highly creative children in tasks stressing creativity.
For these reasons, I assert that emotional intelligence is far more important than intellect when dealing with subjects like religion, philosophy and politics.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The context of this part of the discussion, however, is whether we should abandon philosophy as we know it because of it's failure to change the world and my point was that the failure is not one of philosophy but rather a failure to heed the lessons of philosophy. I still think that is valid.
|
I wasn’t disagreeing with your point here, I was making a distinction between good philosophy and bad philosophy. My criticism was of the intellect, not of philosophy.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I don't follow this. A Feynman diagram is concerned with sub-atomic particles and is used to calculate probabilities of various interaction |