|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 17, 2020 23:49:53 GMT
Philosophy is about overcomplicating the simple and simplifying the complicated. In these respects it is revolutionary, with the root of this being "revolution" where one observation revolves into a new observation. Philosophy is the cycling of perceptions.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 18, 2020 15:18:35 GMT
Philosophy is about overcomplicating the simple and simplifying the complicated. In these respects it is revolutionary, with the root of this being "revolution" where one observation revolves into a new observation. Philosophy is the cycling of perceptions. There are many other views about the nature of philosophy, starting with its etymological definition, namely "the love of wisdom", wisdom being knowledge and/or understanding. So, after Aristotle wrote that all men desire to know, somebody concluded that all men are philosophers. In a way that is correct, but, more specifically, a philosopher is a human who searches for knowledge by investigating anything that is thought, perceived, or even imagined -- all of which are spoken (or exist in one's language). The wealth [content] and nature of one's language is the primary determinant of what a philosophy shall be, while its depth depends on the perspicacity (insightfulness) of the philosopher. (The ancient Sophists and the modern Scientists are, by definition, men who know, and so are those who by their schooling in any field become "doctores philosophiae" [PhDs]) Since Galileo, who wrote "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences", a scientist is a philosopher who uses certain methods to expand the field of inquiry/investigation beyond what one's language provides. And so forth....
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2020 15:54:17 GMT
Philosophy is about overcomplicating the simple and simplifying the complicated. In these respects it is revolutionary, with the root of this being "revolution" where one observation revolves into a new observation. Philosophy is the cycling of perceptions. There are many other views about the nature of philosophy, starting with its etymological definition, namely "the love of wisdom", wisdom being knowledge and/or understanding. So, after Aristotle wrote that all men desire to know, somebody concluded that all men are philosophers. In a way that is correct, but, more specifically, a philosopher is a human who searches for knowledge by investigating anything that is thought, perceived, or even imagined -- all of which are spoken (or exist in one's language). The wealth [content] and nature of one's language is the primary determinant of what a philosophy shall be, while its depth depends on the perspicacity (insightfulness) of the philosopher. (The ancient Sophists and the modern Scientists are, by definition, men who know, and so are those who by their schooling in any field become "doctores philosophiae" [PhDs]) Since Galileo, who wrote "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences", a scientist is a philosopher who uses certain methods to expand the field of inquiry/investigation beyond what one's language provides. And so forth.... True, but to reduce philosophy to a desire for knowledge does not address the nature of knowledge as being inverted from one perspective to another through the mode of investigation. This mode of investigation, where knowledge is received through the subjective angle of awareness, causes an inherent change within the observation in accords to the angle of the observer. Knowledge is continually inverting from one perspective to another resulting in change. That which is observed mimics the mode of interpretation through which it is recieved thus necessitating a recursion of the principles which are applied. For example in counting a set of oranges the oranges replicate the number through which they counted. In dividing the oranges, into x, comes a replication of the mode of counting, which is x in this case. One phenomenon repeated through another through the nature of observation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 18, 2020 17:55:31 GMT
I've heard about "overcomplication" and "simplification". It was said once by Zizek (supposedly there were other people who were saying it).
There is no such thing as "philosophy". At least, we cannot know about it anything. If we had known about it, we would get overall knowledge about everything. The real true philosopher is God.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 18, 2020 19:55:16 GMT
I've heard about "overcomplication" and "simplification". It was said once by Zizek (supposedly there were other people who were saying it). There is no such thing as "philosophy". At least, we cannot know about it anything. If we had known about it, we would get overall knowledge about everything. The real true philosopher is God. Philosophy (the search….) is a historical fact and is that which distinguishes the higher brains from the common or minimalist brains.// If God is omniscient, he already has wisdom [Athena or Hagia Sophia] and he cannot be seeking what he already has.// Let's let logic prevail in whatever we say. We are not automatically logical, and that is why Aristotle, the Stoics, down to some of our contemporaries have investigated logical and illogical discourses. They are philosophers whose field is reason.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 18, 2020 21:14:11 GMT
I've heard about "overcomplication" and "simplification". It was said once by Zizek (supposedly there were other people who were saying it). There is no such thing as "philosophy". At least, we cannot know about it anything. If we had known about it, we would get overall knowledge about everything. The real true philosopher is God. Philosophy (the search….) is a historical fact and is that which distinguishes the higher brains from the common or minimalist brains.// If God is omniscient, he already has wisdom [Athena or Hagia Sophia] and he cannot be seeking what he already has.// Let's let logic prevail in whatever we say. We are not automatically logical, and that is why Aristotle, the Stoics, down to some of our contemporaries have investigated logical and illogical discourses. They are philosophers whose field is reason. I got an idea, I can agree on that being a philosopher means being a true-seeker. But why God can't do something? Isn't He also omnipotent? So, He could seek what He had already known. It probably sounds illogical for us, not for God. This is interesting what you've written about our "not having logical nature" while having it. So, if our brains/minds are fitted to act logically, we're all still illogical beings? To narrow our investigations to only Reason is not quite philosophically, but at the same time - it is. I can accept it, but I can't agree that this route is unique and absolute.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 19, 2020 15:40:13 GMT
Philosophy (the search….) is a historical fact and is that which distinguishes the higher brains from the common or minimalist brains.// If God is omniscient, he already has wisdom [Athena or Hagia Sophia] and he cannot be seeking what he already has.// Let's let logic prevail in whatever we say. We are not automatically logical, and that is why Aristotle, the Stoics, down to some of our contemporaries have investigated logical and illogical discourses. They are philosophers whose field is reason. I got an idea, I can agree on that being a philosopher means being a true-seeker. But why God can't do something? Isn't He also omnipotent? So, He could seek what He had already known. It probably sounds illogical for us, not for God. This is interesting what you've written about our "not having logical nature" while having it. So, if our brains/minds are fitted to act logically, we're all still illogical beings? To narrow our investigations to only Reason is not quite philosophically, but at the same time - it is. I can accept it, but I can't agree that this route is unique and absolute. It is impossible for God or anyone to be omnipotent and not to be able to do something. (The contradiction in terms is obvious.) However, we should refine our ways of speaking: God or anyone simply does not seek [try to have/obtain] what he already has, precisely because he already has it; the seeking would be an imaginary act, not an actual seeking. Similarly, if I know and am certain that "2+2 =4", I cannot be really try to find out what "2+2" is equal to. Of course I could make some translation of "2+2" (as into units) to see if I end up with 4, but this I the construction of a demonstration, not a process of overcoming ignorance. One who is omniscient knows also all possible demonstrations (which may be actually absent in human minds. // What I meant to say is that human thinking is not automatically [or by nature] rational, but sometimes it is rational. Furthermore, humans have already reached an understanding of what is logical (rational)and what is illogical, wherefore they can analyze their own thinking and correct it. // In the garden, God said to Adam, now that you have eaten the forbidden fruit and, therefore, you know good and evil, you have become one of us [gods]……. Sorry, I know I am wandering off the right track.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2020 16:11:04 GMT
I got an idea, I can agree on that being a philosopher means being a true-seeker. But why God can't do something? Isn't He also omnipotent? So, He could seek what He had already known. It probably sounds illogical for us, not for God. This is interesting what you've written about our "not having logical nature" while having it. So, if our brains/minds are fitted to act logically, we're all still illogical beings? To narrow our investigations to only Reason is not quite philosophically, but at the same time - it is. I can accept it, but I can't agree that this route is unique and absolute. It is impossible for God or anyone to be omnipotent and not to be able to do something. (The contradiction in terms is obvious.) However, we should refine our ways of speaking: God or anyone simply does not seek [try to have/obtain] what he already has, precisely because he already has it; the seeking would be an imaginary act, not an actual seeking. Similarly, if I know and am certain that "2+2 =4", I cannot be really try to find out what "2+2" is equal to. Of course I could make some translation of "2+2" (as into units) to see if I end up with 4, but this I the construction of a demonstration, not a process of overcoming ignorance. One who is omniscient knows also all possible demonstrations (which may be actually absent in human minds. // What I meant to say is that human thinking is not automatically [or by nature] rational, but sometimes it is rational. Furthermore, humans have already reached an understanding of what is logical (rational)and what is illogical, wherefore they can analyze their own thinking and correct it. // In the garden, God said to Adam, now that you have eaten the forbidden fruit and, therefore, you know good and evil, you have become one of us [gods]……. Sorry, I know I am wandering off the right track.
It's quite obvious for me that as long as God know everything being omniscient He does not need to pursuit for the truth. When you provided an example of 2+2=4 you said that you still was able to try to check it. It's not impossible for us to become enough forgetful to loose knowledge partially, it could make us back to speculations about it (to fulfill it or smth like this). God needn't do such a thing, but it's also possible He's not stuck and stood still, and then He's investigating what He knows all the time. If He indeed knows everything, He doesn't do anything to get knowledge, but He can do it, nothing is able to stop him doing it. So God can be investigating all the time circularly, having all He's already had. According to the last thought God is philosopher too, but the best one.
|
|