Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
BawrBawr?
OH SNAP!
I really hate this trio and it's oppinions on the knowledge/consious matters.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2006-09-26, 20:34 by [KruzadeR] »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
  
Posts: 3330
|
I really hate images that won't show up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
Fix'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Can't say that's my experience of modern day dismissal of any religion, although ofcourse it's hard to be sure about other people's motives. If simplicity is puzzling, and I think it often is, there's no need for such complex tautologies to get confused. Simply stand still with every word you hear, or ponder the impossibility of giving grounds for anything (ie. "why?", and that's only one word, that you end up repeating).
The only reason that "i am that i am" could have implications and be more puzzling than any other tautology (aside from it ambiguity), is in context. And it is the very influence of context which is too simply, and yet too freakishly complex, for us to put into words.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2006-09-27, 08:22 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Well, only an idiot tries to understand something without considering the context. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
The simple things usually are the hardest things to grasp. Philosophers and such have one simple mission in this world: to ungrasp the simplest things, think about them, and regrasp them in a different way. I find this whole process inttriguing, to say the least. Unfortunately, some of the results obtained from these reflections are... disapointing, to say the least. But all of this is very relative. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
In Exodus 3:14, When Moses inquired of God by what name he should refer to Him, God replied "I AM THAT I AM". Five simple words, but a declaration of such magnitude, of the greatest simplicity but an infinity of implications, that one can go mad trying to ponder it. Perhaps that is why psychologists, and philosophers, and modern thinkers all around dismiss God so often. The simple things usually are the hardest things to grasp. I really think god was just saying "mind your own buisness". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Philosophers and such have one simple mission in this world: to ungrasp the simplest things, think about them, and regrasp them in a different way. Aside from this not being at all simple (at least not in the sense of it being easy, which might be derived from the fact hardly any philosophical questions have been answered adequately so far), I don't think that is a correct description of what philosophers do. Ofcourse, there are many kinds of thinkers, and for some this could vaguely be considered their 'mission statement'. If appropriate for any of them, it sounds like it would most likely fit analytical thinkers (say, logical empiricists) -- as opposed to continental philosophy (or asiatic philosophy, for that matter). It has a vaguely mechanical, technical sound to it: unscrew, analyse, reconstruct. Perhaps it could be twisted to match Descartes' (reductive-compositive) method, although it is too vague and ambiguous to tell. Even if the process matches what some philosophers appear to be doing, usually it is not their 'mission', in the sense that this reconstruction of thought or knowledge is their goal. For some, the surface process is more like a demonstration or metaphor of the impossibility of thinking in the very way that their projects could ever succeed without letting go of that approach. Others begin by expressing the impossibility of 'ungrasping' anything at all, without defeating their purpose. Yet others 'ungrasp' something, then show that what they ungrasped was never there in the first place (for some neat work, see Wittgenstein). The 'simple mission' sounds simple enough, but maybe it is a little too simple? Can you define/refine it some more, perhaps? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2006-09-27, 23:51 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Well, that's the thing. Take something that seems simple, show it isn't and everyone that does not agree (usually without even trying to think along) will call it obfuscation. Show that it is simply different and it will seem incomprehensible.
I also don't think courses are required to understand philosophy. It just requires an open mind, and primary texts. Oh, and a lot of free time on your hands. :]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
Philosophers are peculiar creatures: they study things that no one would and like no one would. Yes, you are right Tabun, they don't have a mission, they have a goal. Mission is a very strict word, that involves the accomplishment of some pre-determined objectives, while a goal is something we desire to accomplish, we don't have to accomplish it. But about their mission being simple... Well, it depends.
Phoenix, just because something can move with 5 pieces, doesn't mean it has to move with 5 pieces. Just because it's easier to make it simpler, does it mean it's the best way? There are many ways to interpretate something, and the more interpretations the better! Also, it's quite obvious that philosophy is something that any man can both create and understand, you don't need a degree to do that, nor to understand that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
That's a pretty bold claim. I won't comment on its content further, that wouldn't serve any purpose.
Both Phoenix's and Kruzaders epistemological claims I cannot agree with, nor do I see any evidence here to support them. If, for instance, I would bring up simple (equally ungrounded) folk-wisdom and intuition such as:
"one cannot know what the limits of someone else's knowledge are."
"you need a minimal level of intelligence and access to a language to study philosophy succesfully."
"all thought is language - without language, there is no thought."
on and on..
That would just be a "yay!" - "nay!" type debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
"you need a minimal level of intelligence and access to a language to study philosophy succesfully." Such intelligence is part of the human nature. We are creatures with power to question everything that surrounds us, both physical things and spiritual, Psychological (whatever) things. OF course that the higher the level of intelligence of the human mind, the better. After all, we aren't born to question these things from day 1. With time, we gain this intelligence, much like knowledge."all thought is language - without language, there is no thought." I've always disagreed with this statement. There is only one reason that lead us to associate language with knowledge, and that reason is that we learn to think with language. If a person was to learn no language at all, that wouldn't stop him from thinking.
And yes, this is just a "yay!", "nay!" type of post. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2006-09-29, 23:57 by [KruzadeR] »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
A few of them, but I think we've established long ago that we disagree in the things I meant. :] Such intelligence is part of the human nature. Let's say that it is. What then, is this human nature? If we find someone unable to reason, to speak, to read, would you say that he or she was unhuman? But I'm afraid the problem is worse than that. I don't know what this 'human nature' is. I've never come across one, and I wouldn't know how to detect its properties (such as having X-amount of intelligence (leaving aside the lack of a satisfying definition for 'intelligence'). If you can give me a good account of it, please do. If I were to state "Such intelligence is not part of the human nature.", have we then a meaningful contradiction? Can we do more than raise our voices and claim that--"by Zeus!"--one is correct and the other isn't? If not, what is your method of justifying or verifying the status of this disagreement? As to the thought-language question: .. and that reason is that we learn to think with language. If a person was to learn no language at all, that wouldn't stop him from thinking. That seems contradictory to me (correct me if I'm wrong). When you say that we learn to think with language, I can only interpret here that language is a necessary condition to learn to think. It also is a necessary condition for being able to verify that thought is indeed going on. Unless you agree with me that thought (and perhaps even philosophy?), then, may well be going on in goats, or ants, or fungi, perhaps. On the other hand, maybe you're not interested in verification, and this is, as you say, a matter of 'nay-yay' -- but why then would you speak of a reason for making claims either way? If I say that the dark side of the moon is pink and give no further reason for it, isn't that a perfectly valid attitude in a 'nay-yay' argument? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
