|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 25, 2021 0:15:40 GMT
Would you imagine a world with no philosophy at all? -- With no academic and no non-academic structures in that.
What makes this world would be better of all the possible worlds? Why such a world would be the most fascinating place?
By the way, if you're gonna answer, define first, please, what is not a philosophy. Or you can define the opposite – what is philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 25, 2021 15:37:11 GMT
Would you imagine a world with no philosophy at all? -- With no academic and no non-academic structures in that. What makes this world would be better of all the possible worlds? Why such a world would be the most fascinating place? By the way, if you're gonna answer, define first, please, what is not a philosophy. Or you can define the opposite – what is philosophy. We don't have to imagine a world without philosophy. Look at the African continent. Even though today it may have schools with philosophy departments, it has been traditionally "philosophiless", that is, without PERSONAL INQUIRIES (about the world we live in, societies, and persons.["Science" is the continuation of the "philosophy of nature".] A non-inquisitive person is not the best of all possible persons, for he is either an infant or a dumb animal. A world without philosophy, poetry, and music is a pre-human world -- which can be fascinating only to humans or our present imagination.... |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 25, 2021 16:08:14 GMT
Would you imagine a world with no philosophy at all? -- With no academic and no non-academic structures in that. What makes this world would be better of all the possible worlds? Why such a world would be the most fascinating place? By the way, if you're gonna answer, define first, please, what is not a philosophy. Or you can define the opposite – what is philosophy. We don't have to imagine a world without philosophy. Look at the African continent. Even though today it may have schools with philosophy departments, it has been traditionally "philosophiless", that is, without PERSONAL INQUIRIES (about the world we live in, societies, and persons.["Science" is the continuation of the "philosophy of nature".] A non-inquisitive person is not the best of all possible persons, for he is either an infant or a dumb animal. A world without philosophy, poetry, and music is a pre-human world -- which can be fascinating only to humans or our present imagination.... I can't agree Africa has no philosophy. It's just a cliche. If people are poor it does not mean they have no philosophy. I would say the Western world has no philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 25, 2021 20:23:00 GMT
Would you imagine a world with no philosophy at all? -- With no academic and no non-academic structures in that. What makes this world would be better of all the possible worlds? Why such a world would be the most fascinating place? By the way, if you're gonna answer, define first, please, what is not a philosophy. Or you can define the opposite – what is philosophy. We don't have to imagine a world without philosophy. Look at the African continent. Even though today it may have schools with philosophy departments, it has been traditionally "philosophiless", that is, without PERSONAL INQUIRIES (about the world we live in, societies, and persons.["Science" is the continuation of the "philosophy of nature".] A non-inquisitive person is not the best of all possible persons, for he is either an infant or a dumb animal. A world without philosophy, poetry, and music is a pre-human world -- which can be fascinating only to humans or our present imagination.... How much time exactly have you spent in africa? I lived here my whole life (50+), and many people are very deep in their appreciation of a natural pantheist philosophy. There is more diversity in thought and environment in africa than the rest of the world put together. Freedom and individualism are so ingrained into life, that it barely needs mentioning as such ideals are seen as obvious. How many millions have died in wars of contrivance in all the rest of the world? How seldom by comparison in africa? You likely are listening to a racist media narrative whereby the african 'govts' are little more than white puppets. I will never even go back to the white world again that is how oppressive your govts and people are. Perhaps talk about that which you have actually experienced. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 25, 2021 20:30:25 GMT
Would you imagine a world with no philosophy at all? -- With no academic and no non-academic structures in that. What makes this world would be better of all the possible worlds? Why such a world would be the most fascinating place? By the way, if you're gonna answer, define first, please, what is not a philosophy. Or you can define the opposite – what is philosophy.
The simplest definition of philosophy is to deconstruct the semantics of the world:
The love of wisdom.
Wisdom implies a dialectic advancement of thought, a dialog of ideas, logical, empirical
and also that which is hermeneutical.
The current world fiasco and censorship is the opposite of this:
Mindless unthinking demagogues and their denizens.
Such is the history of the world, between ignorance and enlightenment,
that often reaches its apex in warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 26, 2021 16:42:10 GMT
Eugene and Jonbain:
it's true that I have not lived in Africa and have little knowledge of the continent, and I made a common mistake, namely the identification of the territory as the homeland of the aboriginal Negroid people. My contention was that there is practically no philosophy amongst the aboriginals. Anyway, I just checked "African Philosophy" in Wikipedia. Its authors call "African philosophy" any philosophy or mental work that took place in Africa or was produced by African residents. Listed: Albert Camus, who was actually French in ethnicity, language, and education. Listed: Augustine of Hippo, who was actually from a Roman family and had a Roman education and profession before he converted to Christianity. Fortunately, for the listed persons I checked (a few, to be sure), I could see their pictures. The few aboriginals were concerned with social issues and, as in the U.S., "Black Studies [of claims, complaints, and revolts]", rather than ethical or cosmological inquiries. // Be as it may, what I personally contrast is entire cultures. I can imagine a "world" (Country or People) without a western-like culture, which comprises poetry, music, philosophy, jurisprudence, freedom, and electric technology -- within the reach of every individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 26, 2021 20:32:42 GMT
Philosophy is to analyze reality at the deepest abstract level possible. Not being philosophical, which is almost the norm in the West today, is the same as only discussing existential problems superficially, as well as not challenging inter subjectivity, which exists in every field of research. Many people react to the superficiality of society by yearning for there being something more to life. But instead of delving into philosophical questions, they find an outlet in superstitions or pseudo religions like Wicca. The real reason is that such beliefs are easily digestible and doesn't challenge the mind. People want simplicity of thought, they do not wish to pay the price for finding the truth.
A world with no philosophy would be, for me, like breathing in air without oxygen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 26, 2021 21:21:52 GMT
Eugene and Jonbain: it's true that I have not lived in Africa and have little knowledge of the continent, and I made a common mistake, namely the identification of the territory as the homeland of the aboriginal Negroid people. My contention was that there is practically no philosophy amongst the aboriginals. Anyway, I just checked "African Philosophy" in Wikipedia. Its authors call "African philosophy" any philosophy or mental work that took place in Africa or was produced by African residents. Listed: Albert Camus, who was actually French in ethnicity, language, and education. Listed: Augustine of Hippo, who was actually from a Roman family and had a Roman education and profession before he converted to Christianity. Fortunately, for the listed persons I checked (a few, to be sure), I could see their pictures. The few aboriginals were concerned with social issues and, as in the U.S., "Black Studies [of claims, complaints, and revolts]", rather than ethical or cosmological inquiries. // Be as it may, what I personally contrast is entire cultures. I can imagine a "world" (Country or People) without a western-like culture, which comprises poetry, music, philosophy, jurisprudence, freedom, and electric technology -- within the reach of every individual. Sure, it's ok. I got no offenses. I agree that there could be philosophiless communities or, let's say, communities with low culture or civilized potential. And at the same time there are low culture and civil persons like me, who often talk too much with not much sense :) |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 26, 2021 21:35:07 GMT
Philosophy is to analyze reality at the deepest abstract level possible. Not being philosophical, which is almost the norm in the West today, is the same as only discussing existential problems superficially, as well as not challenging inter subjectivity, which exists in every field of research. Many people react to the superficiality of society by yearning for there being something more to life. But instead of delving into philosophical questions, they find an outlet in superstitions or pseudo religions like Wicca. The real reason is that such beliefs are easily digestible and doesn't challenge the mind. People want simplicity of thought, they do not wish to pay the price for finding the truth. A world with no philosophy would be, for me, like breathing in air without oxygen. I agree with most of your words. It seems like it is going on exactly as you've said. There's something I can't be certain about – is the simplicity. I think many fields in our life and even in science are close to simplicity or the pursuit of it. But anyway that isn't what I really want to say. I noticed that something I am looking forward to watch some people I know to be friendly and kindly, and it doesn't happen all the time; instead quarrels happen and some other not good things. And I try to understand what's going on and which reasons are behind all that? While I think about this, I have to do something, because when people hate each other the world doesn't become better. And therefore I got to think hard abd deep. My knowledge – all of them from my life – is not enough for it. That's why even this thought visits me not rarely. -- If my knowledge was more compact it would be better; and if instead of to know 100% I could use only 25% of it with the same effectivity – it would be nicer. So, I guess it's clear that I'm not gonna escape difficulties, but many barriers in our life make our lives worse with no simplicity. For sure, philosophy – as Moritz Schlick said "the queen of science" – but it means philosophy brings many burdens: to attache, escort, care, and develop philosophy is too much expensive most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 27, 2021 21:01:08 GMT
Philosophy is to analyze reality at the deepest abstract level possible. Not being philosophical, which is almost the norm in the West today, is the same as only discussing existential problems superficially, as well as not challenging inter subjectivity, which exists in every field of research. Many people react to the superficiality of society by yearning for there being something more to life. But instead of delving into philosophical questions, they find an outlet in superstitions or pseudo religions like Wicca. The real reason is that such beliefs are easily digestible and doesn't challenge the mind. People want simplicity of thought, they do not wish to pay the price for finding the truth. A world with no philosophy would be, for me, like breathing in air without oxygen. I agree with most of your words. It seems like it is going on exactly as you've said. There's something I can't be certain about – is the simplicity. I think many fields in our life and even in science are close to simplicity or the pursuit of it. But anyway that isn't what I really want to say. I noticed that something I am looking forward to watch some people I know to be friendly and kindly, and it doesn't happen all the time; instead quarrels happen and some other not good things. And I try to understand what's going on and which reasons are behind all that? While I think about this, I have to do something, because when people hate each other the world doesn't become better. And therefore I got to think hard abd deep. My knowledge – all of them from my life – is not enough for it. That's why even this thought visits me not rarely. -- If my knowledge was more compact it would be better; and if instead of to know 100% I could use only 25% of it with the same effectivity – it would be nicer. So, I guess it's clear that I'm not gonna escape difficulties, but many barriers in our life make our lives worse with no simplicity. For sure, philosophy – as Moritz Schlick said "the queen of science" – but it means philosophy brings many burdens: to attache, escort, care, and develop philosophy is too much expensive most of the time.
If you mean that people would get along better if they had a more simplistic mindset, then I don't see that. Chimpanzees have a simpler mindset, and they don't get along better than humans. I also don't see in the human world that people of simpler mindset get along better than those who are more intellectually minded.
One could point out, and rightfully so, that also intellectuals can act in a very hostile and primitive way. In fact, quite often, people who discuss philosophy do so for the sole reason of feeling that they're on top. So they'd position themselves such that the other person presents his/her conclusions, without them presenting theirs, for then to do their best to tear down that persons reasoning. In effect, they're just sophists, and I suspect them for being Nihilists and/or truth relativists who believe in nothing.
This is not caused by philosophy, but rather demonstrates that no amount of decorative paint can save a wall of rotten wood. To pretend to be sophisticated is easier than living it, and we live in a world where most of what we see is one part authenticity for every one hundred parts of make belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 3:39:27 GMT
I agree with most of your words. It seems like it is going on exactly as you've said. There's something I can't be certain about – is the simplicity. I think many fields in our life and even in science are close to simplicity or the pursuit of it. But anyway that isn't what I really want to say. I noticed that something I am looking forward to watch some people I know to be friendly and kindly, and it doesn't happen all the time; instead quarrels happen and some other not good things. And I try to understand what's going on and which reasons are behind all that? While I think about this, I have to do something, because when people hate each other the world doesn't become better. And therefore I got to think hard abd deep. My knowledge – all of them from my life – is not enough for it. That's why even this thought visits me not rarely. -- If my knowledge was more compact it would be better; and if instead of to know 100% I could use only 25% of it with the same effectivity – it would be nicer. So, I guess it's clear that I'm not gonna escape difficulties, but many barriers in our life make our lives worse with no simplicity. For sure, philosophy – as Moritz Schlick said "the queen of science" – but it means philosophy brings many burdens: to attache, escort, care, and develop philosophy is too much expensive most of the time.
If you mean that people would get along better if they had a more simplistic mindset, then I don't see that. Chimpanzees have a simpler mindset, and they don't get along better than humans. I also don't see in the human world that people of simpler mindset get along better than those who are more intellectually minded.
One could point out, and rightfully so, that also intellectuals can act in a very hostile and primitive way. In fact, quite often, people who discuss philosophy do so for the sole reason of feeling that they're on top. So they'd position themselves such that the other person presents his/her conclusions, without them presenting theirs, for then to do their best to tear down that persons reasoning. In effect, they're just sophists, and I suspect them for being Nihilists and/or truth relativists who believe in nothing.
This is not caused by philosophy, but rather demonstrates that no amount of decorative paint can save a wall of rotten wood. To pretend to be sophisticated is easier than living it, and we live in a world where most of what we see is one part authenticity for every one hundred parts of make belief.
Oh, no, bot that. It's perhaps another messy messages of mine. Surely, to de-evolve or to decrease mind forces wouldn't be good. (And at the same time, our animal ancestors did survive having less mind abilities. Plus a man, who has not so overwhelming mind powers pretends to survive too.) I wanted to say about: to make our life easier, not our mind abilities :) And of course we could try to simplify style of thinking just casually; for example, for a pilot to think quicker there must be some tricks to do, and if there are, the more chances him to work better; the same for doctors, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 28, 2021 16:16:36 GMT
If you mean that people would get along better if they had a more simplistic mindset, then I don't see that. Chimpanzees have a simpler mindset, and they don't get along better than humans. I also don't see in the human world that people of simpler mindset get along better than those who are more intellectually minded.
One could point out, and rightfully so, that also intellectuals can act in a very hostile and primitive way. In fact, quite often, people who discuss philosophy do so for the sole reason of feeling that they're on top. So they'd position themselves such that the other person presents his/her conclusions, without them presenting theirs, for then to do their best to tear down that persons reasoning. In effect, they're just sophists, and I suspect them for being Nihilists and/or truth relativists who believe in nothing.
This is not caused by philosophy, but rather demonstrates that no amount of decorative paint can save a wall of rotten wood. To pretend to be sophisticated is easier than living it, and we live in a world where most of what we see is one part authenticity for every one hundred parts of make belief.
Oh, no, bot that. It's perhaps another messy messages of mine. Surely, to de-evolve or to decrease mind forces wouldn't be good. (And at the same time, our animal ancestors did survive having less mind abilities. Plus a man, who has not so overwhelming mind powers pretends to survive too.) I wanted to say about: to make our life easier, not our mind abilities  And of course we could try to simplify style of thinking just casually; for example, for a pilot to think quicker there must be some tricks to do, and if there are, the more chances him to work better; the same for doctors, etc.
Finding simpler and more effective ways to solve problems one faces in life? Sure, but functional simplicity requires abstraction, and abstraction requires depth of thought. Depth of thought = Philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 16:26:09 GMT
Oh, no, bot that. It's perhaps another messy messages of mine. Surely, to de-evolve or to decrease mind forces wouldn't be good. (And at the same time, our animal ancestors did survive having less mind abilities. Plus a man, who has not so overwhelming mind powers pretends to survive too.) I wanted to say about: to make our life easier, not our mind abilities And of course we could try to simplify style of thinking just casually; for example, for a pilot to think quicker there must be some tricks to do, and if there are, the more chances him to work better; the same for doctors, etc.
Finding simpler and more effective ways to solve problems one faces in life? Sure, but functional simplicity requires abstraction, and abstraction requires depth of thought. Depth of thought = Philosophy.
With this I cannot disagree with you. It's undeniable. I read an article by some female philosopher Julia Gorbatova, and she wrote on the Occam's razor, and particularly, the simplicity through the example of one of Dr. House series that had the same name. And there Dr. House said his colleague that a patient had had just one parent. The House's colleague was impressed by it and reasked how had he come to such a conclusion? Dr. House answer that according to the Occam's razor we had to conclude the simplier variant =))) So, yeah the simplicity isn't clear for an average fella, and that's why here some mind work would be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Apr 28, 2021 21:37:18 GMT
Finding simpler and more effective ways to solve problems one faces in life? Sure, but functional simplicity requires abstraction, and abstraction requires depth of thought. Depth of thought = Philosophy.
With this I cannot disagree with you. It's undeniable. I read an article by some female philosopher Julia Gorbatova, and she wrote on the Occam's razor, and particularly, the simplicity through the example of one of Dr. House series that had the same name. And there Dr. House said his colleague that a patient had had just one parent. The House's colleague was impressed by it and reasked how had he come to such a conclusion? Dr. House answer that according to the Occam's razor we had to conclude the simplier variant =))) So, yeah the simplicity isn't clear for an average fella, and that's why here some mind work would be necessary.
Occam's razor: If presented with two hypothesis that are otherwise equal in quality, pick the one that relies on the fewest assumptions.
Hypothesis 1: Person A has one parent. Hypothesis 2: Person A has two parents.
Hypothesis 1 assumes that it's possible for a person only to have one parent.
Hypothesis premises that it's possible for a person to have two parents, but that premise isn't an assumption, as it is an established fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 29, 2021 3:50:28 GMT
With this I cannot disagree with you. It's undeniable. I read an article by some female philosopher Julia Gorbatova, and she wrote on the Occam's razor, and particularly, the simplicity through the example of one of Dr. House series that had the same name. And there Dr. House said his colleague that a patient had had just one parent. The House's colleague was impressed by it and reasked how had he come to such a conclusion? Dr. House answer that according to the Occam's razor we had to conclude the simplier variant =))) So, yeah the simplicity isn't clear for an average fella, and that's why here some mind work would be necessary.
Occam's razor: If presented with two hypothesis that are otherwise equal in quality, pick the one that relies on the fewest assumptions.
Hypothesis 1: Person A has one parent. Hypothesis 2: Person A has two parents.
Hypothesis 1 assumes that it's possible for a person only to have one parent.
Hypothesis premises that it's possible for a person to have two parents, but that premise isn't an assumption, as it is an established fact.
Dr. House is a comedy which means of using paradoxes. And that's why his logic went beyond sane and healthy reasonings. He made this: H1: The number of that person's parents = 1 H1: The number of that person's parents = 2 Fact1: 1<2 Result considering the Occam's razor: H1. ;) |
|
