Is modern philosophy out of touch with everyone else?
Sightreader
to everyday lives? If this is so, why is this the case?
I'm just learning very basic philosophy for the first time, and I notice
that, starting in the 20th century, western philosophy really seems to
take on a different tone. I'm not sure how to put my finger on it, but
I'll give it a try.... don't laugh...
Western culture emphasizes logic. By the 20th century it seems that
the combination of masterful skills in debate and a vast history of
existing arguments have made the emergence of "ground up" ideas
very difficult. Any brand new idea for reformulating "common sense"
will start out with a lot of holes, but everyone has gotten so good at
torpedoing things that it's hard to imagine such ideas not being lumped
into a beaten path and killed before it grows. So, the only original
work that's possible is that which is either is a variation or critique of
existing ideas. This makes all the new ideas much like "in" jokes: you
had to "be there" to get it, and it kinda locks out the general public.
OK, that's a wild guess, and I probably just embarrassed myself.
But somehow I really feel that, starting in the 20th century, things
seem to get... I dunno... really inbred or something, and have lost
touch with everyday experience. Am I the only person to feel this
way? Was it like this throughout history, not just today?
Thanks for reading!
Sir Frederick
>
> Is it only my perception, or has modern philosophy lost relevance
> to everyday lives? If this is so, why is this the case?
> Thanks for reading!
Things happened so fast last century that we slow philosophers
have not kept up. Please be patient.
On the other hand philosophy is supposed to be out of touch,
that's it's job.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"The mind is a pattern making machine."--S. J. Gould (1996)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Sects, sects, sects...is that all you monks ever think about?
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sightreader" <StopSp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1fZI8.136829$Po6.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
I am so glad someone else has said that. It is very out of touch, and could
be so useful to mankind if it was brought up to date.
It just seems to be so much history and a muddle of ideas, sort of a "little
bit of this, and a little bit of that",but not much relevance, to today.
Best wishes
Gea
ANTHONY RUBINO
Most of those who think they are doing philosopy are more interested in
showing how clever they are than they are in pursueing an insight to
it's natural conclusion. It is much easier to punch holes in new ideas
than it is to seriously pursue their meaning and implications.
New ideas always have a difficult time, especially since the language
that must be used is tainted, biased, and saturated with old ideas.
In addition to the inherent difficulties of trying to elucidate a new
idea, there is a perverse aspect of human nature wherein the desire to
elevate oneself is satisfied by putting otthers down. Old ideas die
hard. Those that hold them may have a lifetime of psychological
investment in them. They will fight any perceived threat or criticism
with religious fervor; witness evolution.
On the other hand, many ideas that seem to be new have been around since
the beginning of recorded history. Many of them do have serious flaws
and holes in them. Truly new ideas are not that easy to come by. If you
do, in fact, have an insight, old or new, that sheds some light on the
current body of knowledge, there is also a responsibility that goes with
it to pursue it with intelllectual honesty.
There is a great need for some common sense in philosophy today. There
are too many "thinkers" whose education has brainwashed them to a point
where they can deny the evidence of their senses and cling to some
egotistical "reality" of their own making.
I have been trying for almost 50 years to re-introduce some common sense
into philosophy without much success so far: but, I'm still trying.
Hopefully the generation that follows me will have better success and
make a breakthrough. Hopefully, too, some of my efforts might help them
do so.
Perhaps something as simple as a word of encouragement to the right
person will have a greater effect than all the effort I've made so far.
Perhaps you are that person. You at least recognize the problem.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1881/
http://members.tripod.com/~trisector2/index.html
mike
news:ad38st$ef0$2...@paris.btinternet.com:
you have to always determine for yourself what philosophy is. that's what
it's about. it doesn't matter what "philosophers" say, if they've no
meaning for you. philosophical writing is after the fact: we think and
connect, and then, when we aren't thinking and connecting, we write. for
sure, people like Searle aren't writing for us, anyway. they're working out
rhetorical solutions to the problem of how to discribe what "analysis"
actually is in ordinary conversation. if you look around you, you'll see
that most everyone judges the value of an idea by the way it's presented.
very few people are conceptual.
it may be that what most people posting here are looking for is a
theological solution: a way of god for their lives. philosophy is the
negation of all "way of..." except the "way of questioning".
"paradoxically", a real philsophy problem is to ask how our analytical
method can be used to negate itself. most people wouldn't even think that
was desirable. i do.
if you're hungry, don't visit the cannery.
Peter Kinane
"Sightreader" <StopSp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1fZI8.136829$Po6.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Have you tried http://www.effectuationism.com ?
Peter Kinane
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns921D60278BB7A...@66.75.162.196...
**************************************
So what about Plato?,
he covered every aspect of life,
Architecture,
Cities, The Arts,
Love, Life , Death, but he was absolutely relevant to the time he lived in.
If someone in this group started designing the ideal house for people to
live in,
or roads, or very practical ways to help people live, I am sure it
woulden't be considered to be "philosophy",
BUT WHY NOT?
If Plato could form a whole basis for the structure of a workable society,
why not attempt it in this group?
Assuming that Philosophers, are people ,,
with a leaning towards looking into things in
depth,
why not apply this to everyday living?
Make a way to show people how to lead more productive , better lives?
best wishes
Gea Jones
mike
how do you know this? it seems like the academy was about as relevent to
the average joe as PBS is to Fox News Channel viewers today.
>
> If someone in this group started designing the ideal house for people
> to live in,
> or roads, or very practical ways to help people live, I am sure it
> woulden't be considered to be "philosophy",
>
> BUT WHY NOT?
because philosophy, to carry your image, wouldn't know how to live in a
house. practically speaking, yes, we live in houses... but we can imagine
that any solution to how would just be a fashion statement, no matter how
"mentally" designed.
>
> If Plato could form a whole basis for the structure of a workable
> society, why not attempt it in this group?
he was doing a political science. that's where that kind of discussion
belongs.
>
> Assuming that Philosophers, are people ,,
>
> with a leaning towards looking into things in
> depth,
> why not apply this to everyday living?
because philosophy, as a discipline, is against everyday living. philosophy
isn't cool. it's the rigourous application of doubt and connectivity. can
you see the problem? the two concepts are mutually exclusive. that's the
world we live in when we do philosophy.
when some schmoe writes up his report afterwards, it's sort of
traditionally called "philosophy", by association. but the book writing is
authorship of fiction. the thinking of philosophy is just "thinking":
snowflakes on water, and you either have the taste and aptitude for it, or
you have the aptitude for gossiping about what you've read about
philosophers.
>
> Make a way to show people how to lead more productive , better lives?
"way" is philosophical -- have to have an underlying concept of how things
connect in order to develop a "way". after you've a "way" available, then
you can way away in sociology or politics or talk radio and be consistant
to the very roots of the topic, because you are helping to invent the topic
itself.
>
> best wishes
>
> Gea Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
L Crane
Gea Jones <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ad3k57$jh6$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
For me it doesn't really matter what we call it.
> If Plato could form a whole basis for the structure of a workable society,
> why not attempt it in this group?
>
> Assuming that Philosophers, are people ,,
>
> with a leaning towards looking into things in
> depth,
> why not apply this to everyday living?
>
> Make a way to show people how to lead more productive , better lives?
>
> best wishes
>
> Gea Jones
>
>
The aspects of philosophy that deal with making people's lives better have
been separated as western culture has expanded and developed. The fields of
science, politics, economics and law now cover much of what everyone from
Thales to Marx wrote about. I am inclined to believe the argument that the
great thinkers of earlier periods could learn everything in the arts and
sciences that was known at the time, or at least a large portion of it. As
our culture and knowledge grew during the 1800's such a survey of knowledge
became impossible. These days the greatest thinkers make contributions to
only one or two fields of knowledge. It takes so much schooling to "get up
to speed" that lifetimes are spent specializing in sub-fields.
Leonardo Dasso
[snip]
>
> I am so glad someone else has said that. It is very out of touch, and
could
> be so useful to mankind if it was brought up to date.
> It just seems to be so much history and a muddle of ideas, sort of a
"little
> bit of this, and a little bit of that",but not much relevance, to
today.
> Best wishes
> Gea
>
Specifically which authors are you referring to?
regards
leo
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AFdJ8.691$0A.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
This seems to me to be a partly educational problem.
Also a deleberate economic policy,in the West , to make people
develop to their maximum capacity , in a chosen field,
so they are then more suite to the workplace,
so you get an awful lot of Doctors, who would rather be artists,
bricklayers who would rather be poets etc.
I think this kind of specialization is very bad.
People, children, should be encouraged to develop in all directions,
If someone is highly intelligent, then it can be applied to absolutely
anything,
if someone has a gift, help them to pursue it,
I just feel that most Philosophers , [in this group]
could probably get together and do a lot of good in helping
world problems,
well certainly no worse than the politicians,
Best Wishes
Gea
mike
for shur yur not dealing with it as a philosophical problem. you're
translating gea's dialog into your own field of interest. you aren't
questioning gea's concepts, on gea's mapping of those concepts. you think
your world is cleaner... that gea's "confused".
> so you get an awful lot of Doctors, who would rather be artists,
> bricklayers who would rather be poets etc.
this is playing with legos..
>
> I think this kind of specialization is very bad.
> People, children, should be encouraged to develop in all directions,
> If someone is highly intelligent, then it can be applied to absolutely
> anything,
> if someone has a gift, help them to pursue it,
> I just feel that most Philosophers , [in this group]
> could probably get together and do a lot of good in helping
> world problems,
> well certainly no worse than the politicians,
define "certainty"... you're not really using "certainly" in any
intellectual sense are you? isn't it just a throw-in sound for rhythm?
> Best Wishes
> Gea
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns921E463728E8D...@66.75.162.196...
I write how I talk, I didn't even know that I had used the word certainly.
It would have been just as easy to have written something else,
but if you think rythmn is important, then I can write poetry,
a sort of poetic, philosophic dialogue,
could be fun,
I did it once before on alt.tarot,
best wishes
Gea
>
> > Best Wishes
> > Gea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
mike
humm. poetry is the creation of a mind space where ordinary, thoughtless,
words are reinvented as personal concepts by making the reader follow the
maze you set for them.
>
>>
>> > Best Wishes
>> > Gea
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Stuart Towler
"Sightreader" <StopSp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1fZI8.136829$Po6.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
distance learning course on philosophy.
Dont so may areas of learning, particularly science that become distant
from the general public as they mature.
Very few people could have a meaningful discussion with say a physicist.
But with one of the relative new sciences such as psychology the ever
day person can have an opinion or observation that is meaningful to an
expert.
Stuart
Gea Jones
> >> intellectual sense are you? isn't it just a throw-in sound for rhythm?
> >
> > I write how I talk, I didn't even know that I had used the word
> > certainly. It would have been just as easy to have written something
> > else, but if you think rythmn is important, then I can write poetry,
> > a sort of poetic, philosophic dialogue,
> > could be fun,
> > I did it once before on alt.tarot,
> > best wishes
> > Gea
>
> humm. poetry is the creation of a mind space where ordinary, thoughtless,
> words are reinvented as personal concepts by making the reader follow the
> maze you set for them.
>
"Poetry is the establishment of Being ,
by means of the word."
Heidegger
> >
> >>
> >> > Best Wishes
> >> > Gea
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
mike
hah! very funny. don't you think Heiddegger was a butthole? have you ever
had to analyse his writing for presentation? it's not easy, because the
conceptual process doesn't need to go very deep for him... there isn't much
there but a romantic essentialism... very convenient for seductive phil
instructors to use to seduce kiddies into the "mysteries", but not good
phil.
L Crane
> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:ad5qdu$3bg$1...@paris.btinternet.com:
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns921E463728E8D...@66.75.162.196...
> >> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> >> news:ad4u8k$iba$1...@knossos.btinternet.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> > "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:AFdJ8.691$0A.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Gea Jones <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ad3k57$jh6$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> > "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:Xns921D60278BB7A...@66.75.162.196...
> >> >> > > "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> >> >> > > news:ad38st$ef0$2...@paris.btinternet.com:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > **************************************
Not the good stuff. IMO, poetry is ordinary, thoughtful words reinvented or
used to express widely-held concepts, or just to sound good.
I was wondering, what is your background is in philosophy? Your posts seem
to stem from a definite foundation, which I cannot place.
mike
some Hegel studies, with Plato and Husserl. plus the early greats. and
then, of course Wittgenstein, which i've been reading for almost 40 years
now (jeeps!). W. kind of allowed me to be a kindly arrogant snot! but,
right now i'm working on my own schema of things, and that's going to trick
me into thinking that i know what's what.
i think that a decent poetry, like the late Yates and the Donne sonnets,
allows a reflective space where ordinary concepts are thrown into relief.
but, this is possible for me to think, i think, because all so-called
philosophy is a literature first and a pointer to "wisdom" only by
accident.
if you think of my model as a "redemption of physical reality", where
habitual symbol and notion is given life through the poet's enthousiasm,
then maybe that's what i mean by "thoughtless words reinvented as
personal".
mike
>
>
>
Edgar Svendsen
"Stuart Towler" <news@{127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:ad634m$ls1$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
frontier, a place where our knowledge of that area is lacking. This is
where new discoveries, new ideas are made. The frontier of knowledge has
been so advanced in some areas that it takes a long time and a lot of study
just to understand what has been discovered to date. Your example of the
physicist is a case in point. "Technical" philosophy is like physics in
this respect. Philosophy seems to have lost its relevance because it has
advanced sufficiently to require significant study to understand what is
happening at the leading edge. Why should it be the case that ideas about
the most deep and fundamental problems that the human mind has conceived,
are easy to understand and readily accessible to everyday minds? I suggest
that that Sightreader's perception is partly based on the assumption that if
the Truth were found it would be very simple, and its application to
everyday life very clear. This has not turned out to be the case for other
fields, as you point out. I think this idea comes from religion, where it
is common to hold that God provides Truths that are clear and very simple.
Ed
L Crane
Husserl. I (and others, i think) would be interested to hear what kind of
schema you're working from. Theres alot of people in this group coming from
all different directions, without much explanation.
> i think that a decent poetry, like the late Yates and the Donne sonnets,
> allows a reflective space where ordinary concepts are thrown into relief.
> but, this is possible for me to think, i think, because all so-called
> philosophy is a literature first and a pointer to "wisdom" only by
> accident.
What do you mean by "literature" here? What is and what isn't literature?
I think I see what you mean by "pointer", in Wittgensteins sense.
mike
i want to redeem our writing products as products of the aesthetic, i
guess... so i'm using "literature" kind of as pointer too. we think
philosophically, i think... all of us to one degree or another... and when
we express our "philosophical thoughts" what we're doing is creating an
experience with the reader... even if the reader is ourself as editor. i
want to take the stigma of religion out of philosophy, i guess. i want to
view philosophy is an activity of clarity, acted out in the "thought
place" (!), but not an activity which can be done in the "communication
place". one of my phil teachers was very clear on this... that his class
wasn't for "making a philosophy" but only for reading philosopher's
writing. i don't think he'd agree at all with my interpretation of the
meaning of phil literature though. and, in fact, i found that beginning
phil classes taught me how to read, rather than "taught me how to think".
>
>> if you think of my model as a "redemption of physical reality", where
>> habitual symbol and notion is given life through the poet's
>> enthousiasm, then maybe that's what i mean by "thoughtless words
>> reinvented as personal".
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
my schema? well, i think it's based on the notion of pattern building,
somehow. that my intuition is that we lay grids over random data, and that
the grids are peculiar to ourselves as personality and society?
a grid is a "framing" of objects into a namable whole. necessarily
(philosophical necessity) the framing involves a negation of whatever. the
negation is, i think reasonable for the perception, but arbitrary to the
reality of the things negated.
the first "knowledge" is awareness of some "other". -- there's some sort of
thing which is the "us" and is activated as we react. i don't think there's
any "consciousness" without necessity. the otherness is defined as whatever
isn't us. my idea of a first otherness would be things like our arm's
moving in uncoordinated first physicality (sorry about these ad-hoc terms).
i think we build our knowledge of space and time through the acquistion of
experience... say, from body part to body part, and then then to into-your-
face experiences and "collision" experiences. i think we build our space
unit by unit, where the unit is your physical self and the area within
which your physical self is has been bounded through collisions with
barriers. i'm calling this first stage of the "consciousness" the
awareness. it's not like Berkeley's stored image awareness, but is meant as
a simply binary "it is, it is not" awareness.
but, i've skipped a step in my explaination. how is space intuited if all
we see is contrasts of in and out, dark and light? the Perception is the
stage after awareness, and is the pattern making ability applied to the
apparent randomness of experience.
the pattern making is, essentially, a mapping (!) of the objects of
awareness to eliminate confusion... the elimination of confusion by
arbitrarily dealing only with what can be dealt with. -- this must be the
realm of memory, because there is a comparison made of the objects sent up
from, detemined by, the awareness. the comparison sorts according to some
sort of principle of "familiarity", which must mean that some object of
awareness is determined as a repetition, rather than a instance of a unique
object. the ability to determine "repetition" is the pattern making ability
itself.
an object of perception being formed, it is available to the
"consciousness", which is the naming activity: the symbolic. an object
presented to the consciousness is tagged as a reference. this is the realm
of "language", where the patterning is now used to organize objects which
are not random, by definition. the objects for the consciousness needn't
have any content at all, but need to be familier to the mind-process (which
i'm saying means that they've been determined in the perception, from the
awareness).
let me leave it at this point, for your critique. i understand that schema
like this aren't provable, but only exist as only aesthetically
satisfying... and i hope that i'm philosopher enough to re-pattern what
i've created in response to your critique.
mike
>
>
>
1Z
> to everyday lives?
Is modern geology, relevant, or modern astronomy ?
L Crane
It does have aesthetic value, but as you say, it's not very provable. Now I
think you wrote somewhere that ethics is a separate field from philosophy,
but I would like to know how you think they are related. You've said that
philosophy has to do with conjunction, disjunction and abstraction. If this
means philosophy is finding/making abstracted patterns, I agree. It is
"looking at the big picture", or looking at all aspects of a topic, and the
aspects of those aspects, ect. I don't mean these as solid definitions of
philosophy but more as pointers. All the philosophical systems are
different maps of the world. Some of these systems include ethical codes.
I call these codes a part of philosophy, what do you say?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
mike
"ethics" is a way of life. some schemae are created by combining symbols in
unusual ways... "invention" is maybe this idea. other schemes are created
by subtracting symbols from a set. i think this is the proscriptive.
philosophy is a proscriptive act: it disentangles language. ethics is a
proscription. let's say that ethics is always the exclusion of a behavior.
you are usually thinking of what you should no longer do, or what shouldn't
be done as rule.
what we do when we think is not the same as what we do when we remember
what we thought. thinking is very flexable, very plastic, and allows
symbols to be overdefined, doubled, and separated at the thought's
conclusion. making an ethics involves thought -- but, making anything
involves thinking as a patterning of what we know into a usable structure
in language. even the thought of making a jug out of clay.
i'm not seeing anything which would make ethics "like" philosophy. ethics
is like the writing of a report or a philosophy paper. some things which
have occured to us are organized according to the needs of communication.
ethics are organized in the language of behavior. i've heard this "the
language of..." so many times, and yet i don't know what it really means.
the language of value is the principle that that what will be said is going
to be about choice. i suppose the origin for us of choice is in the
awareness: the binary. but, the idea of using the binary for our own
purposes... coopting the understanding, is maybe the origin of all our
intellectual activity. this still doesn't make ethics a part of philosophy,
and it doesn't say anything about philosophy either. i hope this isn't too
fey, but i wonder if this kind of question can't only exist in
conversation, and, therefore, can't really be answered in an axiomatic way?
without ending the conversation by taking the talk into the "poetic" or the
"philosophical"? the dialog would have to start with "what is behavior,
that we can change behavior for the good"?
> You've said that philosophy has to do with conjunction,
> disjunction and abstraction. If this means philosophy is
> finding/making abstracted patterns, I agree. It is "looking at the big
> picture", or looking at all aspects of a topic, and the aspects of
> those aspects, ect.
i wonder if, instead of "seeing the big picture", philosophy isn't actully
reducing the picture by reducing the variables "in some particular way"
(maybe this is mechanics of "the language of..." ethics, etc?) so that we
are left with simple, prime, gestures (!) in the dialog? gestures of
"direction", "exclusion", "conjunction", etc (sounds suspiciously like
"math", and i'd better watch myself before i start just contrasting the
concepts without seeing the concepts as a process). the "abstraction" is
just the special "mood" of not taking anything at face value: the
generality, the "abstraction" of the quality or quantity from objects in
nature, and playing with these qualities in free space.
> I don't mean these as solid definitions of
> philosophy but more as pointers. All the philosophical systems are
> different maps of the world. Some of these systems include ethical
> codes. I call these codes a part of philosophy, what do you say?
>
i've said some stuff, but i don't feel i know how to answer your question
yet.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Sightreader
"Edgar Svendsen" <solo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tMJJ8.378$3_4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I suggest
> that that Sightreader's perception is partly based on the assumption that
if
> the Truth were found it would be very simple, and its application to
> everyday life very clear. This has not turned out to be the case for
other
> fields, as you point out. I think this idea comes from religion, where it
> is common to hold that God provides Truths that are clear and very simple.
>
Hello Ed!
Thanks for your reply. There are a fair number of philosophical insights
that my (puny) mind finds non-trivial that have worked their way into
"common sense". Even the most uninformed members of society are
deeply influenced in the way they solve problems, how they argue, and
how they relate to others by great philosophical achievements of the
past. Everything from murder mysteries, the court system, and even
soap operas inadvertently teach a great deal about Locke, Kant, and
others. Even 20th century things like post-modernism and Freud have
been very successful in working their way into "common sense". Many
of these ideas are anything but religious or simple.
To me it seems that when older ideas don't work, people more and
more are turning to ideas from other cultures rather than advances
in our own philosophy. I am concerned that this is a warning sign that
perhaps too much effort is being spent on criticizing or expanding
existing paths rather than blazing new ones. In a fast changing world,
with people at loss as to how to deal with genetic engineering, internet
freedoms, and a host of other difficult issues, we need philosophers
more than ever to establish a conceptual framework which lawmakers,
judges, and the population at large can use to effectively talk about
and tackle difficult dilemmas that are roaring into of our lives.
Stuart Towler
Perhaps society needs to use philosophers more?
There have been some interesting cases where philosophers have brought
thier skills to bear on examining very complex situations.
An example of this in the UK is a public inquiry that was held to
investigate childrens heart surery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. The
inquiry was headed by Ian Kennedy who is a philosopher.
Should business and insitutions employ philosophers as they employ
accountants?
Many large organisations such as airports have chaplins.
Stuart
Edgar Svendsen
>
> Hello Ed!
>
> Thanks for your reply. There are a fair number of philosophical insights
> that my (puny) mind finds non-trivial that have worked their way into
> "common sense". Even the most uninformed members of society are
> deeply influenced in the way they solve problems, how they argue, and
> how they relate to others by great philosophical achievements of the
> past. Everything from murder mysteries, the court system, and even
> soap operas inadvertently teach a great deal about Locke, Kant, and
> others. Even 20th century things like post-modernism and Freud have
> been very successful in working their way into "common sense". Many
> of these ideas are anything but religious or simple.
>
> To me it seems that when older ideas don't work, people more and
> more are turning to ideas from other cultures rather than advances
> in our own philosophy. I am concerned that this is a warning sign that
> perhaps too much effort is being spent on criticizing or expanding
> existing paths rather than blazing new ones. In a fast changing world,
> with people at loss as to how to deal with genetic engineering, internet
> freedoms, and a host of other difficult issues, we need philosophers
> more than ever to establish a conceptual framework which lawmakers,
> judges, and the population at large can use to effectively talk about
> and tackle difficult dilemmas that are roaring into of our lives.
>
>
>
>
framework can be built effectively?
Most of the people you cite lived a long time ago, this may imply things
about how long it takes philosophical insights to work their way into common
sense. If this is true, then philosophers are probably just as effective
now as they ever were, we are just more impatient, modern culture leads us
to demand instant results.
I think we turn to the philosophy of other cultures, especially asian ones,
because they are still firmly locked in the pre-post-modernism world and
that sense of certainty and universality is still appealing. For most,
however, these philosophies have not been the answer to modern problems, and
adherence to them is declining even in their homelands.
One of the greatest philosophical ideas of the past few centuries is the
idea of establishing truth by test and by consensus of expert practitioners
(not one or the other, but both simultaneously). This idea has served the
sciences extremely well. When applied to philosophical frameworks that can
be used as guides for judges and legislators as well as the population at
large, it has been successful only at demolishing such frameworks, not in
forming new ones. I think you're right, philosophers have not invented
frameworks that are immune to this effect, I do not think this is because
modern philosophers are too ingrown, I think it's because it's a very hard
problem.
ed
Edgar Svendsen
"Stuart Towler" <news@{127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
modern society. An extreme case of this is the new emphasis on "Zero
Tolerance" policies. Many ills in society would be ameliorated if the
actions of the social apparatus were those recommended by a moderately wise
person who considered the details of the case at hand. This could be a
philosopher or a judge or just a thoughtful person. The tendancy is in the
opposite direction, we prefer to make simple rules and principles and apply
them blindly to complex issues. There are a lot of reasons for this, some
good, others less compelling; but the result has been what we have now.
Ed
Sightreader
> Most of the people you cite lived a long time ago, this may imply things
Exactly... that was my main concern. Few people can name top philosophers
who are still alive.
> about how long it takes philosophical insights to work their way into
common
> sense. If this is true, then philosophers are probably just as effective
> now as they ever were, we are just more impatient, modern culture leads us
> to demand instant results.
I think the problem is more serious than people simply being impatient. I
think
the problem is that society changing technology is being introduced much
faster
than society can adapt to it. If we want to prevent social turmoil and
chaos, we
need to create and popularlize new philosophical groundwork faster than
ever.
>
> One of the greatest philosophical ideas of the past few centuries is the
> idea of establishing truth by test and by consensus of expert
practitioners
> (not one or the other, but both simultaneously). This idea has served the
Philosophically speaking, almost none of the ideas that have become "common
sense" seem to have anything approximating consensus about them.
Testing assumes (I think) that logic is the only approach to the truth.
Logic
seems to be easier to use in destroying things than creating things, and is
only
as wise as the axioms that it's founded on. Certainly it's crucial for
honing and
challenging new ideas, but I think it's dangerous to take it beyond that.
Too
many times it seems that argumentative types use its criticisms as decisive
rejections rather than challenges that a new idea must adapt to.
> I think you're right, philosophers have not invented
> frameworks that are immune to this effect, I do not think this is because
> modern philosophers are too ingrown, I think it's because it's a very hard
> problem.
>
I guess the source of my complaint is that laymen like me simply have no
idea what philosphers are working on these days. The assumption is that
they're still beating old postmodern horses to death when we desperately
need them to tackle these new upheavals. Maybe they are working on it,
maybe they aren't. Maybe they're hard problems, maybe they're trivial.
The problem is, most of us simply have NO idea of who they are and
what they are doing.
I feel philosophy needs to resume its role as the vanguard for navigating
society through turbulent times. I am concerned that postmodernism
seems to suggest we should just give up because all ideas are relative.
I think that's the dead end of excessive logic: each set of axioms creates
independent logic systems, and they can be quite unrelated to each other.
To me this doesn't excuse being dismissive of new ideas as just adding
points of view and noise. I think we need to get beyond this and start
creating systems that DO something: who cares if they can't be proven
as true or not? We'll NEVER know that - that's been recognized as a
problem since the beginning of time, and yet somehow we need to push
on. I say we keep logic in its place: use it ensure that new systems are
consistent with themselves, and stop using it to stifle new ideas.
Sorry about getting on the soapbox: I'm obviously a little frustrated by
all this. I hope I didn't offend you in any way...
Sightreader
it's comforting to hear that someone who actually knows something feels
the same way...
"ANTHONY RUBINO" <TRIS...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15538-3C...@storefull-2317.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> There is a great need for some common sense in philosophy today. There
> are too many "thinkers" whose education has brainwashed them to a point
> where they can deny the evidence of their senses and cling to some
> egotistical "reality" of their own making.
Hits the nail on the head. The founding idea may make still anchor to
common sense, but they keep piling on that idea until they've wandered
way out there. If they're out of touch with common sense, I think it's a
warning sign that things have gotten too inbred and they need to shift
focus on new and different foundations.
>
> I have been trying for almost 50 years to re-introduce some common sense
> into philosophy without much success so far: but, I'm still trying.
> Hopefully the generation that follows me will have better success and
> make a breakthrough. Hopefully, too, some of my efforts might help them
> do so.
>
Out of curiosity, what happens when you try to introduce the idea? Do
they scoff at you or something? I would tell them that wandering too far
from common sense is a warning sign that we're too many assumptions
deep, and perhaps some foundations need to be challenged or new ones
need to be developed. How do they respond to that sort of feedback?
Sightreader
As a layman, this has me somewhat confused. Many layman are
specialized in other things and don't have the time or talent to do
their own philosophy. This doesn't mean they don't benefit from
someone who shows them a new way of thinking about their
world that applies to their situation. Ironically, a lot of these same
people think philosophy is useless, unaware of how their lives are
really an expression of the philosophy underneath.
> if you look around you, you'll see
> that most everyone judges the value of an idea by the way it's presented.
> very few people are conceptual.
While this is true, I'm not sure how it pertains to the problem.
Policemen just enforce the law, and don't have to think concepts
underneath it. This doesn't mean that they're not affected when
the laws turn out to be haphazard or inconsistent.
> it may be that what most people posting here are looking for is a
> theological solution: a way of god for their lives.
Ack! How did THAT get in here?
> philosophy is the
> negation of all "way of..." except the "way of questioning".
Certainly I don't dispute that. Questioning and challenging
existing assumptions is a crucial part of philosophy. The
problem is that philosophy needs to create, not just complain.
If all you do is question and challenge, then everything you do
is relative to existing ideas. To me, this gets inbred real quick:
too much reaction, not enough creation. I think questioning
should be the means of creation, not an end unto itself.
Sightreader
"1Z" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd762132.02053...@posting.google.com...
> Is modern geology, relevant, or modern astronomy ?
I think this is the sign of successful philosophy. When a branch of
philosophy becomes so useful that it ceases to be viewed as philosophy,
I think it has won wide acceptance. Theoretically every field of science
is actually a development of philosophy, but philosophy that has become
so useful that it has become an applied field.
So what about philosophy itself? In a fast changing world,
with people at loss as to how to deal with genetic engineering, internet
freedoms, and a host of other difficult issues, we need philosophers
more than ever to establish a conceptual framework which lawmakers,
judges, and the population at large can use to effectively talk about
and tackle difficult dilemmas that are roaring into of our lives.
Leave it to the scientists to develop the areas that are already accepted.
L Crane
> "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:fHUJ8.9035$0A.27...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
>
> >
> > mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns921F5865E333A...@66.75.162.198...
> >> "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:_rOJ8.7119$0A.22...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns921EB087C936F...@66.75.162.196...
> >> >> "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:ncBJ8.50834$xN5.11...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:Xns921E6D40082B5...@66.75.162.198...
> >> >> >> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:ad5qdu$3bg$1...@paris.btinternet.com:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> >> > "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:Xns921E463728E8D...@66.75.162.196...
> >> >> >> >> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:ad4u8k$iba$1...@knossos.btinternet.com:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> >> >> > "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:AFdJ8.691$0A.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >> >> > Not the good stuff. IMO, poetry is ordinary, thoughtful words
But as philosophy disentangles language it may exclude behaviour. Systems
that disentangle language and exclude certain expressions may, in doing
that, exclude behaviours. Does this make sense in your schema?
mike
news:3v8K8.85851$cQ3.2739@sccrnsc01:
>
> "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns921D60278BB7A...@66.75.162.196...
>> you have to always determine for yourself what philosophy is.
>
> As a layman, this has me somewhat confused. Many layman are
> specialized in other things and don't have the time or talent to do
> their own philosophy.
then they don't do philsophy. probably, it means that they don't know how,
since it's a thing you can do at night before you go to sleep. all you have
to do is think of some thing which is real to you and then ask yourself
what that thing means to you. philosophy is when you throw out the "it
makes me..." and think about how you acquired this notion in the first
place.
> This doesn't mean they don't benefit from
> someone who shows them a new way of thinking about their
> world that applies to their situation.
this is "wisdom" stuff. anyone can be wise. philosophers throw out wisdom
like sweat, from looking at the world up-side down and coming to terms with
it.
> Ironically, a lot of these same
> people think philosophy is useless, unaware of how their lives are
> really an expression of the philosophy underneath.
>
>> if you look around you, you'll see
>> that most everyone judges the value of an idea by the way it's
>> presented. very few people are conceptual.
and? what's your point? that most everyone is a friendly dog?
>
> While this is true, I'm not sure how it pertains to the problem.
> Policemen just enforce the law,
> and don't have to think concepts
> underneath it. This doesn't mean that they're not affected when
> the laws turn out to be haphazard or inconsistent.
>
>> it may be that what most people posting here are looking for is a
>> theological solution: a way of god for their lives.
>
> Ack! How did THAT get in here?
because they haven't understood how they name things.
>
>> philosophy is the
>> negation of all "way of..." except the "way of questioning".
>
> Certainly I don't dispute that.
good, then you won't mind if i question your intention in posting this? are
you saving the world, or bringing the world down to an easy level?
philosophy is what we do to reduce the world to our own terms. philosophy
isn't a nice thing to do.
> Questioning and challenging
> existing assumptions is a crucial part of philosophy. The
> problem is that philosophy needs to create, not just complain.
> If all you do is question and challenge, then everything you do
> is relative to existing ideas. To me, this gets inbred real quick:
> too much reaction, not enough creation. I think questioning
> should be the means of creation, not an end unto itself.
you misunderstand: philosophy is the empty questioning. philosophy doesn't
create anything. if you go to Paris as a tourist, are you "creating
something"? but, when you come home and write and draw your paris
experience, isn't that creating? that's all "philosophy writing" is... just
tourist notes from the land beyond living and dead.
>
>
>
>
mike
let's try "behaviors are a notation". they aren't a primary, but a
complexity, whose meaning, and existance, is determined only as we look
back or look upon "behavior". when we are acting, we're not "behaving",
we're "doing things".
the actions, behaviors, could be seen as a limited set of possibilities
known by the body and extended by the "mind" into other our topology.
behavior is more like chess game, with its own rules but no rule which
allows the game to transform itself into game-less-ness, while still
playing the game -- no grammar rule set has a provision for parsing outside
the language: chess doesn't become checkers when a pawn takes the rook.
it's not part of the game. grammars are a way of behaving with language, of
seeing behavior, but not structures for "inventing" language.
L Crane
Yes, sounds very Wittgensteinian. But I don't see how this puts ethics
outside of philosophy. Philosophy would be the organization/modification of
grammars. It can deal with the grammar of "good" and "right" just as it can
deal with "mind" and existance.
Sightreader
confrontational. I didn't mean them to be: as a layman, I
have no grounds for confronting actual philosophers.
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> then they don't do philsophy. probably, it means that they don't know how,
Sometimes it's that they don't know how, but for a lot of people I've
talked to, they view such thinking as idle and non-productive. They
are perfectly capable of it, but are uninterested. Obviously I disagree
with them, as I believe that philosophy has enormous (but subtle)
practical benefit.
> this is "wisdom" stuff. anyone can be wise. philosophers throw out wisdom
> like sweat, from looking at the world up-side down and coming to terms
with
> it.
I guess it would help to elucidate the difference between wisdom and
philosophy. I have no idea what the precise difference would be, but
how does this sound for a first cut:
Wisdom is the benefit of experience, while philosophy is a way of
thinking. You can have philosophy without wisdom if it's entirely
theoretical but never applied. You can have wisdom without
philosophy if your learnings are not unified by underlying concepts.
How's that? I know, I know... it gets silly to fuss over words too
much, but I thought it would be cool to try to express those that
difference...
> and? what's your point? that most everyone is a friendly dog?
The tone of your reply indicates that perhaps I annoyed you in
some way. Please try to be understanding: I'm only a layman,
and I have no intention of angering you.
>
> because they haven't understood how they name things.
I'm not familiar with the background here: how does the issue
of "naming things" relate? (frantically flips through his inadequate
philosophy book....)
> good, then you won't mind if i question your intention in posting this?
are
> you saving the world, or bringing the world down to an easy level?
You wordplay and characterization of my view indicates to me
that I somehow made you argumentative. I didn't intend to do
that, and I apologize if earlier statements angered you.
As stated in the thread, I believe that the works of people like
Kant, postmodernists, Sartre, and many, many others have had
an enormous impact on the way everyday people think about
their lives and deal with problems that confront them. Does this
mean that their works were brought down to an easy level? I
can't really answer that, as I haven't analyzed this interaction
very much, but I can say that these philosophies have been very
helpful to people in understanding and managing their world.
I feel that this contribution needs to be acknowledged to help
increase the communication between philosophers and the
public. We need philosophers to help us face the myriad social
challenges being presented by rapid technological change.
> philosophy is what we do to reduce the world to our own terms. philosophy
> isn't a nice thing to do.
Please clarify what you mean by a "nice thing to do". Is philosophy
invasive or demeaning? I'm not familiar with the background behind
your statement.
> you misunderstand: philosophy is the empty questioning. philosophy doesn't
> create anything. if you go to Paris as a tourist, are you "creating
> something"? but, when you come home and write and draw your paris
> experience, isn't that creating? that's all "philosophy writing" is...
just
> tourist notes from the land beyond living and dead.
>
From what I can tell, there is tremendous creativity in (at least) the
philosophies of the past. They've invented frameworks for helping
us view the world. I don't think the invention of a system for thinking
about, categorizing, and understanding the mechanics of a problem
in an innovative and consistent way is an easy achievement nor is it
empty questioning. Sure, like any intellectual work, nothing tangible
is fashioned, but I assume that's not what you meant...
mike
news:B_cK8.81091$ux5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
> I apologize if the terms of my original post were somehow
> confrontational. I didn't mean them to be: as a layman, I
> have no grounds for confronting actual philosophers.
>
> "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> then they don't do philsophy. probably, it means that they don't know
>> how,
>
> Sometimes it's that they don't know how, but for a lot of people I've
> talked to, they view such thinking as idle and non-productive.
why are you talking with them then? because the make funny faces?
> They
> are perfectly capable of it, but are uninterested. Obviously I
> disagree with them, as I believe that philosophy has enormous (but
> subtle) practical benefit.
>
>> this is "wisdom" stuff. anyone can be wise. philosophers throw out
>> wisdom like sweat, from looking at the world up-side down and coming
>> to terms with it.
>
> I guess it would help to elucidate the difference between wisdom and
> philosophy.
wisdom is a practical rule-set for some specific activity. "always wear a
hat in the rain". philosophy is the reaction to these kinds of
generalities. we start by asking what rain is, and if hats are magic.
> I have no idea what the precise difference would be, but
> how does this sound for a first cut:
>
> Wisdom is the benefit of experience, while philosophy is a way of
> thinking. You can have philosophy without wisdom if it's entirely
> theoretical but never applied. You can have wisdom without
> philosophy if your learnings are not unified by underlying concepts.
>
> How's that? I know, I know... it gets silly to fuss over words too
> much, but I thought it would be cool to try to express those that
> difference...
these are real things for certain discussions.
>
>> and? what's your point? that most everyone is a friendly dog?
>
> The tone of your reply indicates that perhaps I annoyed you in
> some way. Please try to be understanding: I'm only a layman,
> and I have no intention of angering you.
only a "LLama"?? is that why you don't like dogs?? =)
>
>
>>
>> because they haven't understood how they name things.
>
> I'm not familiar with the background here: how does the issue
> of "naming things" relate? (frantically flips through his inadequate
> philosophy book....)
you name things with the help of your parents and friends and your own
experience. these are all pretty accidental helpmates.
>
>> good, then you won't mind if i question your intention in posting
>> this? are you saving the world, or bringing the world down to an easy
>> level?
>
> You wordplay and characterization of my view indicates to me
> that I somehow made you argumentative. I didn't intend to do
> that, and I apologize if earlier statements angered you.
don't apologize, i'm not bothered, i'm engaging with you. i'd like to hear
what you have to say, buddy. you can't just walk down the street naked in
this town without wearing your glasses! oh, you wanna be totally naked,
eyah! well, that makes sense. i can't see anything either.
>
> As stated in the thread, I believe that the works of people like
> Kant, postmodernists, Sartre, and many, many others have had
> an enormous impact on the way everyday people think about
> their lives and deal with problems that confront them.
you think that's really true? maybe if they get it by osmosis. i can
understand that we can feel a certain thing like Sartre described. but, i
don't know if that isn't just a human thing that i share with everyone
else, and with Sartre too. but, for sure, he labeled the moment as a
"feeling".
> Does this
> mean that their works were brought down to an easy level? I
> can't really answer that, as I haven't analyzed this interaction
> very much, but I can say that these philosophies have been very
> helpful to people in understanding and managing their world.
> I feel that this contribution needs to be acknowledged to help
> increase the communication between philosophers and the
> public. We need philosophers to help us face the myriad social
> challenges being presented by rapid technological change.
>
>> philosophy is what we do to reduce the world to our own terms.
>> philosophy isn't a nice thing to do.
>
> Please clarify what you mean by a "nice thing to do". Is philosophy
> invasive or demeaning? I'm not familiar with the background behind
> your statement.
it doesn't easy anyone's mind. it doesn't bring peace or even fresh baked
bread. creative arts are the stuff for that. that's what i do, but i need
to look into my art for some reason. that's the phil part.
>
>
>> you misunderstand: philosophy is the empty questioning. philosophy
>> doesn't create anything. if you go to Paris as a tourist, are you
>> "creating something"? but, when you come home and write and draw your
>> paris experience, isn't that creating? that's all "philosophy writing"
>> is... just tourist notes from the land beyond living and dead.
>>
>
> From what I can tell, there is tremendous creativity in (at least) the
> philosophies of the past.
remember that they aren't the "philosophy", they're books and discussions.
philosophy has no content -- the great books are dripping with content.
> They've invented frameworks for helping
> us view the world.
we've done something with something, but i don't know that we've invented
mind. for sure we've invented ways of doing things. and, analysing how a
smart guy puts a book together teaches us about structure.
mike
naw, that would be the analysis of grammar. the stuff that modern
"philosophers" do. philosophy ignores grammar, since grammar is just
another ad-hoc framework for dealing with the unknown. we make our own
frames from scratch.
> It can deal with the grammar of
> "good" and "right" just as it can deal with "mind" and existance.
all in a grammar world, like a painter's world of pigment and binder.
L Crane
Alright, thats a good distinction. But when we make these frameworks many
of them will deal with what we should or should not do, ethics. If I
understand you these frameworks are pretty much fresh starts. So why
wouldn't they include ethical ideas? I suppose I can see your point when
you compare ethics to a philosophy paper, as opposed to philosophy itself.
Ethics can be system, like the system shown in a philosophy paper, and not
the act of philosophy. But ethics would still have its origin, at least in
part, in the act of philosophy.
mike
ok, now we get to another problem. the way i'm looking at the stuff in my
mind, the notions, is a kind of ethics: i'm going to look at stuff as
honestly as i can. the act of philosophy takes place as a conversation.
what phil does, though, is take you to the point where words are invented:
it's like dropping little paper boats onto a swift creek.
Leonardo Dasso
"ANTHONY RUBINO" <TRIS...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15538-3C...@storefull-2317.public.lawson.webtv.net...
[snip]
> I have been trying for almost 50 years to re-introduce some common
sense
> into philosophy without much success so far: but, I'm still trying.
> Hopefully the generation that follows me will have better success and
> make a breakthrough. Hopefully, too, some of my efforts might help
them
> do so.
>
In what area of philosophy have you being trying to introduce some
common sense? Where do you work? What is your specific area of study?
regards
leo
mike
102497.news.dfncis.de:
the philosophic cheerleading. he's been waving his arms, and he's not
tired. yet.
philosophy isn't something that someone else has. it's your own thinking
activity talked about in leasure. for all we know, everyone may not need to
think at all.
Leonardo Dasso
The clown of the ng --untiring and excitable, as usual, still finds who
to play with. We do like you (all the same).
with my regards and appreciation
leo
L Crane
> "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:mGdK8.59618$xN5.14...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
>
> >
> > mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns922090B60FFFA...@66.75.162.198...
> >> "L Crane" <turn...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:IUcK8.59607$xN5.14...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
> >>
> >> "philosophers" do. philosophy ignores grammar, since grammar is just
> >> another ad-hoc framework for dealing with the unknown. we make our own
> >> frames from scratch.
> >
> > Alright, thats a good distinction. But when we make these frameworks
> > many of them will deal with what we should or should not do, ethics.
> > If I understand you these frameworks are pretty much fresh starts. So
> > why wouldn't they include ethical ideas? I suppose I can see your
> > point when you compare ethics to a philosophy paper, as opposed to
> > philosophy itself. Ethics can be system, like the system shown in a
> > philosophy paper, and not the act of philosophy. But ethics would
> > still have its origin, at least in part, in the act of philosophy.
>
> ok, now we get to another problem. the way i'm looking at the stuff in my
> mind, the notions, is a kind of ethics: i'm going to look at stuff as
> honestly as i can. the act of philosophy takes place as a conversation.
> what phil does, though, is take you to the point where words are invented:
> it's like dropping little paper boats onto a swift creek.
I still don't see your distinction. Different ethical ideas can spring from
your philosophy just as a philosophy paper can.
Edgar Svendsen
I am suspicious of systems that DO something. I know of no system that
provides answers, or formulas for answers, that I would expect to achieve
consensus. There are systems that claim to have answers, but they would
have to be imposed, they have not been accepted by a majority. I think that
few Western academic philosophers are working on things that would culminate
in systems that would provide the guidance you seem to be looking for.
I pin my hopes on human emotion as much as human thought; I incline to the
view that thoughtful people who posess compassion and empathy can/could find
solutions to most problems by dealing with each issue, each case, each set
of particular circumstances, without the overhead of a singular
philosophical viewpoint. What I don't know how to do is get such people in
a position where they are allowed to deal with issues.
Ed
Sightreader
relevant...
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9220904BA5023...@66.75.162.198...
> you think that's really true? maybe if they get it by osmosis. i can
> understand that we can feel a certain thing like Sartre described. but, i
> don't know if that isn't just a human thing that i share with everyone
> else, and with Sartre too. but, for sure, he labeled the moment as a
> "feeling".
>
When I was little, I promised myself not to learn philosophy. I wanted
to come up with all my ideas on my own, to develop something that
was completely original and completely my own, then compare notes
when I was done.
When I was in college, the time had finally come when my own ideas
had started to stagnate and I was ready to test them against the great
ideas of history.
I sat in on lectures about philosophy, and as I heard accomplishments
of great philosophers, I was so proud to realize that I, on my own, had
come to these very same conclusions!
Well, after a while, I began to realize that something fishy was going on,
because I had independently come up with ideas that took centuries for
the greatest minds to derive. Furthermore, all of my ideas were western:
not a single one of my ideas was completely original nor from other
cultures.
All I had done in my efforts was to reverse-engineer the ideas that we
live with every day. Everything in the society around us is an expression
of philosophy. The final proof was going to China: at first, things don't
seem so different, but when I tried to live with a family, you start to
appreciate subtle but deep differences in the way people think about
conflicts, the way people react to the news, the kinds of advice they
give to each other, and so forth.
Thus, I strongly believe that philosophy is not empty questioning. I
believe it has an enormous effect on our everyday lives since it is the
foundation of our idea of "common" sense.
Sightreader
> Not at all!
>
> I am suspicious of systems that DO something. I know of no system that
> provides answers, or formulas for answers, that I would expect to achieve
I think I didn't express myself very clearly: I'm new at this stuff. To
me, philosophy helps structure our thinking and provides us with
analysis tools to help understand our problems. It doesn't "do"
anything in the sense that a math equation or blueprint "does"
something. However, the solutions that you discover to a problem
depend heavily on how you represent the problem: your way of
analyzing a problem has an enormous influence on your solution,
or what you "do".
Thus, although philosophical ideas don't actually tell you what to do,
they DO tell you how to approach and conceptualize what you're
facing, which goes a long ways toward structuring your solution.
Example: Post-modernism changes the way some laymen approach
social differences and conflict: you hear them use terms like "to each
his own", "celebrate diversity", "political correctness", and so forth.
It doesn't tell you exactly how to act in any given situation, but the
picture of multiple points of view, all legitimate, works its way into
"common sense" and affects the way we think about social
disagreements. Not too many of these terms were in popular use
50 years ago.
Does that make sense at all, or did I just confuse things more?
mike
102497.news.dfncis.de:
this is alt.philsophy, but it's used as a yard sale for sales and
validations of little thoughts and big opinions -- which of these best
models your intention?
mike
where do they spring from? is the idea a show of something which causes a
reaction? philosophy is usually done as a reaction, it's true, to some
concept which seems "wrong".
the proplem is that we are discussing philosophy, but that is like
discussing scuba diving. the moves are there, but we're not weightless in a
medium.
L Crane
philosophy and western common sense, without much movement from philosophy
to common sense. The philosophy could be a sort of soap box for ideas that
were already gaining strength among the public. Remember that the
philosophers were just as much members of the culture as anyone else, and so
were influenced by it. And the ones that were popular would be the ones
"saying what I've been thinking all along."
L Crane
Sure
> the proplem is that we are discussing philosophy, but that is like
> discussing scuba diving. the moves are there, but we're not weightless in
a
> medium.
Yeah, I'd say 90% of this group's threads are talking about what philosophy
is. I say we make two rules:
1. Don't try to define philosophy in this group
2. Never respond to something by saying "that's not philosophy". Make up
new word if you have to, but make the point without saying philosophy.
mike
oh, goody. understand that every discussion about philsophy is only about
the reality of philosophy. to talk only of the putated "content" of
philosopy is like talking of "dreams" by telling about dreams you've had.
it's just not conceptual, and it's not even an interesting telling of the
dreams, since the teller is constantly trying to remember and make sense at
the same time he's trying to sound "normal" to the listeners.
this group is what? just who we think might be here, or whomever is
actually here? do we know what kind of mind is reading us?
"don't ever" is a moral judgement -- that's not philosophy. =)
"democracy" means one thing to an american and another thing to an
englishman. i'm an american and i live in a democracy, so i'm not going to
be forced to say, say, that "democracy" doesn't mean "rule of the folk",
but, rather, "rule by mob", even if the englishman thinks it so. the word
"philosophy" will do: the tourists are only here looking for a free T-
shirt. why should we ask them to make up the slogan too?
what size would you like?
ANTHONY RUBINO
In what area of philosophy have you been trying to introduce some common
sense? Where do you work? What is your specific area of study?
Normally, when questions are addressed to me, I feel some obligation to
try to answer them to the best of my ability. In this case, however, I
have some serious reservations. Answering them might be as much of a
disservice both to Leo and to this group as not answering them. What is
the purpose of the questions? Why does he ask? Why me?
The questions seem innocent enough. I could answer them in a number of
different ways. But, the primary problem is that such questions are
irrelevant and do not belong in a group like this. What is posted should
be evaluated on its own merits, not on the credentials of the author.
Now that I got that off my chest, I shall answer the questions in the
most relevant way that I can.
I have been trying to introduce some common sense into all areas of
philosophy, in all walks of life, and with everyone I have contact.
Let's be reasonable, see it my way.
My specific area of study is the nature and application of thinking,
which pervades all areas of knowledge, and walks of life.
I'm retired. At the present time I work on the internet. I have a
website, and now, this newsgroup.
Aren't you glad you asked?
In conclusion I would like to add that you can learn more about
philosophy by watching children learning to deal with the world than you
can from books and lectures. That's what I think about credentials.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1881/
http://members.tripod.com/~trisector2/index.html
Edgar Svendsen
And, in light of your original post, you wnat to know what the
state-of-the-art is in conceptualizing. Well, there's Derrida and the
reaction to him, and there's the cosmologists, represented at the layman's
level by Hawking. There's some language philosophy, but I don't understand
it. And, undoubtedly, much more that I don't even know about. Which was
your original point. But the trouble is, these ideas are new (sort of), not
polished, and difficult to do Reader's Digest simplifications on. Still, I
like your idea. The members of this forum might include some who are
sufficiently plugged in to make a list of Who's Who and What They're
Thinking. It would be a big job, though. It would be a large book, I bet.
If any reading this know of a survey of that kind on the philosophers of the
last 25 years or so, I'd sure like to hear about it and read it.
I've got "Philosophy As It Is" ed. Ted Honderich and Myles Burnyeat. But it
assumes a substantial knowledge of pre-post-modern philosophy. I don't
recomend it highly but it is an attempt to meet the need you describe.
Ed
Leonardo Dasso
My question was not aimed at inquiring about your credentials and I
never suggested any intention to judge your statements according to any
credentials. I simply wanted to know what area of philosophy you were
interested in. Philosophy encompasses many domains and it seems to me a
reasonable question to ask in what particular one of them somebody is
interested in or works or has worked in. At any rate, the uncalled for
defensive nature of your reply seems to suggest that you feel that
statement that you have been trying to introduce common sense into
philosophy was perhaps a bit of an exaggeration.
regards
leo
Ben Hoff
were not so well stated. Please continue if there is more.
"Sightreader" <StopSp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1fZI8.136829$Po6.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> Is it only my perception, or has modern philosophy lost relevance
> to everyday lives? If this is so, why is this the case?
>
> I'm just learning very basic philosophy for the first time, and I notice
> that, starting in the 20th century, western philosophy really seems to
> take on a different tone. I'm not sure how to put my finger on it, but
> I'll give it a try.... don't laugh...
>
> Western culture emphasizes logic. By the 20th century it seems that
> the combination of masterful skills in debate and a vast history of
> existing arguments have made the emergence of "ground up" ideas
> very difficult. Any brand new idea for reformulating "common sense"
> will start out with a lot of holes, but everyone has gotten so good at
> torpedoing things that it's hard to imagine such ideas not being lumped
> into a beaten path and killed before it grows. So, the only original
> work that's possible is that which is either is a variation or critique of
> existing ideas. This makes all the new ideas much like "in" jokes: you
> had to "be there" to get it, and it kinda locks out the general public.
>
> OK, that's a wild guess, and I probably just embarrassed myself.
> But somehow I really feel that, starting in the 20th century, things
> seem to get... I dunno... really inbred or something, and have lost
> touch with everyday experience. Am I the only person to feel this
> way? Was it like this throughout history, not just today?
>
> Thanks for reading!
>
>
ANTHONY RUBINO
I never saw those three questions asked of anyone else, They seemed
unusual and I didn't really know the best way to respond so that I
thought a little levity was in order while taking the opportunity to
make the point about judging things on their own merits without any
appeal for "authority".
I did tell you what you wanted to know. My specific area of study is
the nature and application of thinking which was derived form the
insight that was the primary point in the post: i.e., we think in terms
of values.
Chad L
philosophy has grown in my opinion (though some will undoubtedly argue that
"there is nothing new under the sun")
In my opinion philosophy is the search for Truth and knowledge.
I define Truth as that which exists as Real, i.e., an objective reality -
even if I am the only thing Real.
I define knowledge as justified true belief (about what is or is not Real).
To me, philosophy has grown into something that we now call "science". What
I mean is that science has become a very huge part of philosophy (though
philosophy is more than the scientific method, obviously). Science, like
philosophy, is concerned with the search for truth and knowledge.
Separation of the terms (Science & philosophy), imo, is an artificial
construct, as science is a *type* of philosophy[s]. But, I believe the
artificial construct can be useful in the following analogy: Science
without philosophy is a boat without a rudder. But philosophy without
science, in modern times, is rudder without a boat!
Finally, those who claim to be philosophers with little knowledge of science
are far behind the times, and are more scholars and historians (or
charlatans) than "philosophers". And I dare say that had any truly great
philosopher of the past had access to today's scientific methods,
technology, and data: Kant, Kierkegaard, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche,
Anaximander, Thales, Descartes, Confucius, etc., that they would have all
been well versed in modern science (assuming all of the aformentioned were
really concerned with the pursuit of truth and knowledge).
Now, as far as modern philosophy's "being out of touch with everyone else" -
that depends upon what you consider to be "philosophy". I personally feel
that many people have a romanticized view of philosophy. "Hey, I think deep,
that's easy for me!" or "Everyone's a philosopher". This romanticized view
is often contrasted with the common views on math and science ("Who cares
why a rat behaves that way?; who cares about how the eye works?; who cares
about the weak bonds in a chemical reaction?; who cares about the physics of
baseball? I'm concerned about the reeeeealy important (easy) stuff! I'm
concerned with the meaning of life!!").
Most have been conditioned to avoid math and science all together
throughout their entire lives. The "philosophy" department at your local
university are mostly a bunch of English majors who also avoided science and
higher math (check it out yourself if you don't believe me!). And so when
it comes down things that require deep thought and wisdom, its only natural
to go with what we know (afterall, "everyone's a philosopher"). Well, this
trend is changing in the modern day. Science and math are becoming more and
more popular, while those seeking to avoid science and math will find
themselves more in touch with the dinosaurs as a consequence.
So - is everyone else searching for truth and knowledge, is everyone else
"philosophers", or are they searching for meaning and self-justification
that they can only take through other peoples' acknowledgment? In my
opinion, "Being out of touch" is usually an irrelevant judgment.
mike
news:adha71$dal$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net:
> This will probably be my only comment on this thread, but in modern
> times, philosophy has grown in my opinion (though some will undoubtedly
> argue that "there is nothing new under the sun")
>
> In my opinion philosophy is the search for Truth and knowledge.
>
> I define Truth as that which exists as Real, i.e., an objective reality
> - even if I am the only thing Real.
> I define knowledge as justified true belief (about what is or is not
> Real).
"real" is a philosophical issue.
Ben Hoff
> > are too many "thinkers" whose education has brainwashed them to a point
> > where they can deny the evidence of their senses and cling to some
> > egotistical "reality" of their own making.
When you say egotistical do you mean that the person has an unsupproted
overvaluation of his/her own worth? Or do you mean that they are using a
defense mechanism to help support a somewhat desperate personal reality.
You use "cling" which makes me think of someone in real need.
> Hits the nail on the head. The founding idea may make still anchor to
> common sense, but they keep piling on that idea until they've wandered
> way out there. If they're out of touch with common sense, I think it's a
> warning sign that things have gotten too inbred and they need to shift
> focus on new and different foundations.
>
> >
> > I have been trying for almost 50 years to re-introduce some common sense
> > into philosophy without much success so far: but, I'm still trying.
> > Hopefully the generation that follows me will have better success and
> > make a breakthrough. Hopefully, too, some of my efforts might help them
> > do so.
> >
>
> Out of curiosity, what happens when you try to introduce the idea? Do
> they scoff at you or something? I would tell them that wandering too far
> from common sense is a warning sign that we're too many assumptions
> deep, and perhaps some foundations need to be challenged or new ones
> need to be developed. How do they respond to that sort of feedback?
>
>
Ben Hoff
I agree Gea, with the idea that philosophers can, but I won't say should,
help people think in ways that make their lives better. I'm not assuming
that is what you mean among the other ideas that you illustrated.
> > >> Is it only my perception, or has modern philosophy lost relevance
> > >> to everyday lives? If this is so, why is this the case?
> So what about Plato?,
> he covered every aspect of life,
> Architecture,
> Cities, The Arts,
> Love, Life , Death, but he was absolutely relevant to the time he lived
in.
>
> If someone in this group started designing the ideal house for people to
> live in, or roads, or very practical ways to help people live, I am sure
it
> woulden't be considered to be "philosophy",
>
> BUT WHY NOT?
>
> If Plato could form a whole basis for the structure of a workable society,
> why not attempt it in this group?
>
> Assuming that Philosophers, are people ,,
>
> with a leaning towards looking into things in
> depth, why not apply this to everyday living?
>
> Make a way to show people how to lead more productive , better lives?
>
> best wishes
>
> Gea Jones
Sightreader
"Ben Hoff" <goodid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ufogbee...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > There is a great need for some common sense in philosophy today. There
> > > are too many "thinkers" whose education has brainwashed them to a
point
> > > where they can deny the evidence of their senses and cling to some
> > > egotistical "reality" of their own making.
>
> When you say egotistical do you mean that the person has an unsupproted
> overvaluation of his/her own worth? Or do you mean that they are using a
> defense mechanism to help support a somewhat desperate personal reality.
> You use "cling" which makes me think of someone in real need.
>
I can't presume to speak for the original post (it wasn't me), but the way I
interpret it is that a lot of philosophers try to build a reality one piece
at a
time based solely on logic and argument, where each addition is only
responsible to the arguments on which it is based. The resulting house of
cards ends up bearing little resemblance to "common sense": it's a reality
that's entirely their own construction. Perhaps there's some overvaluation
going on there, in the sense that they're "egotistical" enough to believe
that
their reasoning skills alone are sufficient to model reality without having
reality get in the way...
Sightreader
"Chad L" <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:adha71$dal$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> In my opinion philosophy is the search for Truth and knowledge.
>
Hmmm... this opens that "What is Philosophy" can of worms, so I
posted a reply in another topic.
Sightreader
"Edgar Svendsen" <solo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uF5K8.662
> >
> It seems to me that there is a tendancy to substitute rules for judgement
in
I would agree that this society has become excessively procedure
oriented, abusing the intention of law ruthlessly to achieve aims quite in
opposition to the concepts the laws were trying to represent. Now
we have new cases brought on by technology (genetic manipulation,
internet rights, etc) that we don't even have underlying concepts. For
these, we're just making laws haphazardly with no underlying concept
to express. Yuck!
> actions of the social apparatus were those recommended by a moderately
wise
> person who considered the details of the case at hand. This could be a
> philosopher or a judge or just a thoughtful person. The tendancy is in
the
I hear that Islamic law is based on this principle. Instead of hard and
fast procedures, it's a set of priorities, and the judge is expected to
make a subjective judgement about how those priorities apply to a
given case. As you well know, this hasn't quite worked out as planned:
where there's subjectivity, there's the chance for corruption, as you can
usually come up with a rationalization for even bad decisions.