Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Sept 18, 2022 4:05:22 GMT
There is a book of Deleuze about the concept of philosophy (as Deleuze imagine that possibility) that I doubt answer this question properly.
What is Philosophy? There is a Philosophy and a philosophy, as Dharma and dharma? What kind of thing is philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 18, 2022 4:26:32 GMT
Is as mysterious as an encircled triangle square, but it drives onto something else, like "what triangles are?", "what life should we live?", "how to get wiser?", or "what is philosophy?"
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 18, 2022 17:41:06 GMT
Philosophy Is A Curiosity For The Epistemology. Instead Of Being An A.I Machine, Philosophers Can Think And Challenge Their Programming, Their Programmed Surroundings And Initiate Potential Higher Processing Of Reality, Where Non-Philosophers Do Not Pursue. Albeit, There Are Very Little "True Philosophers" Left In This World To Ask The "Real Questions".
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 18, 2022 17:49:19 GMT
Is as mysterious as an encircled triangle square, but it drives onto something else, like "what triangles are?", "what life should we live?", "how to get wiser?", or "what is philosophy?" Sorry, but all that is besides the point (the locus, the topos) of discourse. You did not answer the question. I see that you are saying that since philosophy is something mysterious for the inquirer, he is driven to ask, What is philosophy? Obviously, otherwise he would not have answered the question. He does not have to be told that phil. is mysterious for him. So I ask, What was your point in replying? And, What is my point in responding? Before turning to the internet, I was investigating language and dealing specifically with "talking besides the point" -- not the grammar, semantics, semiotics, orthography or etymology and history of the phrase, but ..... OF WHAT? That's the question! When I say, You are talking besides the point", in what field of linguistics am I operating? When I read your post and felt that you were talking besides the point, I felt like telling you and addressing my problem at the same time. In fact, I had an inkling as to what category of linguistics that phrase belongs: RHETORIC. But I dismissed the thought because Rhetoric is about the art of forensic/public speaking, that is, argumentation ["to convince"] in a courtroom or in a forum/agora [to get political election votes, or to convince an assembly to vote for or against a government's proposed law. In Latin, Rhetoric has been called Eloquence -- a word that emphasizes "clear speech" [against "acoustic mumbling"] and "clear wording" [against "semantically obstruse/obscure wording", and injecting, in the topical discourse, facts and remarks that are besides the topic/point]. Voila`, I have solved my problem, and thanks for listening.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 18, 2022 20:39:39 GMT
Is as mysterious as an encircled triangle square, but it drives onto something else, like "what triangles are?", "what life should we live?", "how to get wiser?", or "what is philosophy?" Sorry, but all that is besides the point (the locus, the topos) of discourse. You did not answer the question. I see that you are saying that since philosophy is something mysterious for the inquirer, he is driven to ask, What is philosophy? Obviously, otherwise he would not have answered the question. He does not have to be told that phil. is mysterious for him. So I ask, What was your point in replying? And, What is my point in responding? Before turning to the internet, I was investigating language and dealing specifically with "talking besides the point" -- not the grammar, semantics, semiotics, orthography or etymology and history of the phrase, but ..... OF WHAT? That's the question! When I say, You are talking besides the point", in what field of linguistics am I operating? When I read your post and felt that you were talking besides the point, I felt like telling you and addressing my problem at the same time. In fact, I had an inkling as to what category of linguistics that phrase belongs: RHETORIC. But I dismissed the thought because Rhetoric is about the art of forensic/public speaking, that is, argumentation ["to convince"] in a courtroom or in a forum/agora [to get political election votes, or to convince an assembly to vote for or against a government's proposed law. In Latin, Rhetoric has been called Eloquence -- a word that emphasizes "clear speech" [against "acoustic mumbling"] and "clear wording" [against "semantically obstruse/obscure wording", and injecting, in the topical discourse, facts and remarks that are besides the topic/point]. Voila`, I have solved my problem, and thanks for listening. I'm not a good psychologist, so many times I cannot say what kind a person is talking to me. You might be right. Answering 'mysterious' won't solve the problem. But what if I answered him 'I don't know, and no one else did', or 'this is the discipline that never answers the questions'? I'm not a fan of linguistic primacy for solving problems. Even participating Analytic Philosophy branch, I am not a fan of those as Michael Dummett for whom " what distinguishes analytical philosophy [read: any good philosophy] , in its diverse manifestations, from other schools is the belief, first, that a philosophical account of thought can be attained through a philosophical account of language, and, secondly, that a comprehensive account can only be so attained" ("Origins of Analytic Philosophy", 1993). That's why I allow my words or sentences are not good [they are indeed very bad-constructed, poor-meaning, etc], while people can read them without so much harm. I think the linguistic technique and tools are necessary when the creator of the text isn't available, and one cannot ask him more. Whereas, until the talker hasn't disappeared, it's easier to ask. Why not to stay dialogue-tuned? Even a linguist would be muted if there were no dialogues at all. Isn't the work of a linguist to collect meanings empirically? I appreciate your worries, and will try to escape such pointless answers. Indeed. I mean, it is really good to hear any critic. I don't know why, maybe because when I was a child I was a quite beautiful and smart for my years, so many tried to idolize me or something, however their admires didn't help me to see my own mistakes for to avoid them. And when most of time all what you hear are just compliments or kinda has an opposite effect. So, you are of course right, and I am aware of that rhetoric effect. Such Renaissance authors as Marsilio Ficinno (sorry for mistakes, I didn't google the names in English), and Lorenzo Valla (he had translated Plato, hadn't he?) wrote notes about styles (and also morality, etc) including rhetoric as one of forms to make more beuty, or to charm, to impress etc and so on using specific rhetoric. Of course even the sophists had it done, but I guess only starting Reneissance thing went like that. I am not much of fun of the Ancient Greece, so that's why I don't think ancient Greeks were directed on rhetoric as it is not in politics. [Compare Machiavelli's virtue and Plato's narratives about telling lie to warriors or myths of what's going on.] And yes, the question is what is philosophy may pretend to be the winner the prize in a category of "The most philosophical question ever".
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 29, 2022 6:36:06 GMT
The best example of philosophy is Plato's wall. People see shadows on the wall and think those shadows are real. The shadows are a fairly superficial form of reality, but still contain aspects of that which is real. So people are typically content watching shadows their whole lives. The sad reality of the analogy is that if i look at contemporary academic philosophy, all i see is people admiring shadows as if they are real. Genuine philosophy has to have at its core: axiomatic logic, and a grounded basis in geometry. The essential philosopher that modern society needs to rediscover is Descartes, and how that led to Newton. True philosophy will result in concrete science, but it also isolates the mind as being outside of science, thus we are left with the wide inquiry into ethics and art (culture), which can never be contained by science, for science is contained within culture. Anyone who likes to be considered a philosopher but cannot be bothered with logic, is a sophist and a charlatan. In THIS era, the epitome of logic is the computer algorithm. We sit with unprecedented logical power beneath our fingertips. Those who neglect to make serious inquiry into that power instead thinking words alone are sufficient, are like children playing with tools and weapons. For philosophy is THAT power. You create society around you with YOUR ideas; and if those ideas are contradictory and illogical. Your society crashes and burns. This is no little game for dabbling in. Even guns are safer than philosophy, for guns came as a consequence of thought. The sword is only a reality when the complex idea of its origin is understood philosophically, those ideas communicated by the quill. The King is he who can extract that sword from the stone where it lies embedded in the dark and scary recess of our souls. The culmination of my own inquiry is the categorical proof of the soul: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/chapter/pandora-2.htmBut does it follow that because some souls exist that all are such a being?
|
|