Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

TOI part 1

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:53:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The transcendence of ideas (a quick and dirty version)


What is philosophy? A Fools Tale!


The Fool: I will start this article but I am not going to finish in one day or sitting, but over a long period of time. I am putting it out in small part but it will unfold into a final doctrine.

My motivation for this series of article is the lack of cohesion in the understanding of philosophy; I hope to make it much clear and cohesive of what exactly are the differences within the discipline. What is practical and what is not. Where do major ideas which are shape who we are today come from? We tend to take for granted that what we know is plain and common knowledge, but lots of it took a lot of thinking and reasoning, work and sacrifice of others. That right, at least 97% of your ideas are not actually yours per say but they have been picked out intuitively by discursive resources in language and conversation that you may have at one time thought of as irrelevant, nonsensical or non-practical.

Discursive resources: Mediums which communicate ideas. Language, symbols reading and writing, or even body language or learning by training or watching others.

A major problem I want to highlight about philosophy is that of language in philosophy. I have argued before that not all philosophy is philosophy, and I don't mean this in a contradictive sense, but rather all that which is labels the name "Philosophy" doesn't necessary share a commonality.

To understand this problem you have to know the history of philosophy, at least western philosophy.

It is Plato/Socrates who defined what a philosopher is as the lover of wisdom, Wisdom in my best interpretation being simply the accumulation of knowledge. That is, we say someone is wise, we mean that they have a lot of knowledge. This is not the same as saying someone is sharp, smart or intelligent. For a child or anybody for that matter may be intelligent but he may still be ignorance. That is lack the necessary information to know something.

But none the less philosophy was meant to be a progressive, critical inquiry into the accumulation of knowledge.

Thales is considered the first philosopher because he was the first person to try and explain the world without appealing to supernatural or spiritual explanations. Or rather we may say he was the first one to write his philosophy down. I am sure he is not the original philosopher but he wrote it down, so he gets the credit in western philosophy.

I want to know 'Y'

We could understand why appealing to supernatural or mystical explanations are appeasing because of our attempt to answer the Why question? For it is intuitive in Human nature that we do things with intention. Most particularly we move with intention. So it is not wonder why everything that was not understood, even more so when it comes to movement we desire motivational explanation. Why does the sun move? Well it's because of the Sun God. Why is there moving water? Well it's because of the Water God.

The ‘Why' question is different from the how question? Where how is a mechanistic or as I would argue, formative, and the ‘why' question is motivational/intention.

I think I have exhausted the average DDO attention span at this point, so I will stop here.

Objections and refutations

1. What I am curious about is any refutations? Is there any? Mabye I have made a mistake. Please point them out.

2. Is the why really difference from the how?

3.Have you been fooled? Is this a false meaning of philosophy?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sure I've said this four times, when you've claimed this with different philosophers, but:

Thales did not say Thales is the original philosopher. Nor did Hume, Plato, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Camus, or scooby doo. It was Bertrand Russell. First chapter, Third paragraph first line of A history of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:26:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:49:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'm sure I've said this four times, when you've claimed this with different philosophers, but:

Thales did not say Thales is the original philosopher. Nor did Hume, Plato, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Camus, or scooby doo. It was Bertrand Russell. First chapter, Third paragraph first line of A history of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell.

The Fool: first of it doesn't say anybody in particlur. secondly I know I have read the the whole book. Lastly he isnt the only one who says it. Aristotle says it too. That is where Betrand gets it from. and its in alot of other books. make sure you understand what you are talking about first.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:07:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: and also what is your motivation. are you trying to help, correct or enlighten, or .... or..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This thread has been host to a conglomeration of some of the most magnificently absurd bullish!t that I have seen since I read Clark and Chalmer's extended mind theory.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:21:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:26:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/25/2012 5:49:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'm sure I've said this four times, when you've claimed this with different philosophers, but:

Thales did not say Thales is the original philosopher. Nor did Hume, Plato, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Camus, or scooby doo. It was Bertrand Russell. First chapter, Third paragraph first line of A history of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell.

The Fool: first of it doesn't say anybody in particlur. secondly I know I have read the the whole book. Lastly he isnt the only one who says it. Aristotle says it too. That is where Betrand gets it from. and its in alot of other books. make sure you understand what you are talking about first.

I'd like to know of these other books that exist, preferably ones that don't cite Russell, that state Thales as the first philosopher. Most books I own on ancient Greek philosophy states it as Homer, due to the nature of Ancient Greek philosophy. Including, might I add, Russell's later works.

Speaking of which, and just after reviewing some different work, philosophia, meaning the love of wisdom and used to define ancient Greek words, was stated by Homer in iliad.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:01:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 5:21:31 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

The Fool: First things first. I wish you could get over you hostile nature, for it is such motivations that cause hasty generalization. Part of what it means to admit being a Fool, is to recognize that I am prone to error. In other words it the ability to recognize our limitations of knowledge. Refutation is a necessary condition, for most knowledge. (Think Carl Popper ) You are very smart at 16 yrs, of age. I would in fact be gratuitous in your positive participation, AKA questioning me on something that doesn't fit right to you. And with adding new ideas or showing me that I missed something. But don't declare it or just dictate it, just ask me first for my justification for I might be omitting something for a good reason, or be saving it for a later. If then you find it flawed, then you can tell me why and present your justification, and maybe it is better. I would like to know, and to fix my structure of knowledge where I have error. That is the whole point of the principle of Charity in philosophy; its keep philosophy positive and progressive. Just think for a second, you are not in a position to possibly account whether or not I have justification behind something. It is flawed even to say that it's not true base of your experiences, for I may have (or not) been fortunate enough to have had the critical experience to make such demarcations. Maybe you did. I am neo-enlightenment thinker; I value Critical and rigorous justification in philosophies. I try my best to keep my beliefs in line with what I could rationally justify.

This is just a part of what I want to say, I really want to understand clearly and distinctly of the complications of your approach.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 2:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:51:29 PM, YYW wrote:
This thread has been host to a conglomeration of some of the most magnificently absurd bullish!t that I have seen since I read Clark and Chalmer's extended mind theory.

The Fool: can you give any examples?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 2:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 2:32:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/30/2012 11:51:29 PM, YYW wrote:
This thread has been host to a conglomeration of some of the most magnificently absurd bullish!t that I have seen since I read Clark and Chalmer's extended mind theory.

The Fool: can you give any examples?

My apologies. I think I meant to post that in response to another thread, but got caviler about posting.
Tsar of DDO