34
   

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

 
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:15 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
I fetched some food for a co-worker on my lunch break once. I picked up some carry-out from a place I had never been to. I asked for directions, here is what he said:

"You're going to drive down Telegraph Rd. When you get to a bridge, you can turn left or right. Go straight over the bridge."

Drawing a map is telling me to drive straight over the bridge.
Over-philosophizing with your head in the clouds is telling me about the left and right turn I'm not going to take.

A
R
T


see, i like those directions, going over the bridge is how you get the food, but you could just as easily have turned left or right and found something better to eat, or met the girl of your dreams, or found the perfect job
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:30 am
@stevecook172001,
stevecook172001 wrote:

Fido wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
To some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hp

Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.

Opinions?

Philosophy is a form of study that allows us be unhappy more intelligently.

Philosophy is not a form of study but a way of life, and its goal is not happiness, but the good which is the object of all human activity... Happiness is more a predisposition of people than a goal... It is like being an optimist or a pessamist, a trait of character...


Bugger me

You know how to kill a joke...

I have nothing against that... Would you be offended if I wore a condom???
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:36 am
Hi All!

Does the philosopher in me inspire the poet in me or the poet - the philosopher?

Sheep

This flock, so naive. How is it they flourish?
They've long traded their hearts and their souls
For Desire, and Greed, and Material goals
They inhibit their feelings, are restrained in their thoughts
Trapped... in their day-in, day-out routines
Only free
In their dreams

Designing their lives and ideals
On the basis and style of the social regime
Concealed beneath their shrouds of projected images
Acquired from those they admire and respect
They hide in their technology, and yearn for immortality
Instead of just living for Fun

Indoctrinated by religion and culture from birth
Herded, like sheep, unaware of their worth
Forgotten... The beauty, of Nature and Trust
Forgotten... Of Love, replaced Her with Lust

They adhere to their Gods, in times of unrest
Ignorant of their hypocritical faith
For, was it not those very same Gods, that they call out to
That caused their miseries
In the first bloody place?

Gone! Has the balance, our ancestors shared
In its place groweth Chaos, War and Despair
On the brink of extinction, with eyes still wide shut
They indulge, in their passion of worth
For them, it will surely feel worse

The answers to questions that haunt them to death
Are plain to see and hear
But they cannot see and cannot hear
For they are content
Are they not?

Cursing, of neighbours, and putting up shelves
Planning their evenings, by what's on TV
Caught-up in themselves
Afraid to be free, Only...Enough!...
Just live, and let live
And just say what you see

IMO neither would exist without the other. They are the same thing!

Kind regards.
Mark...
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:38 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All!

Does the philosopher in me inspire the poet in me or the poet - the philosopher?




Neither, I would say.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:44 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

failures art wrote:

Head in the clouds: Is Paris the Capitol of France?

I think the current exchange in that thread is a very excellent example of lost in the clouds. If philosophy cannot find consensus on if Paris is the capitol of France, I'm amused at the suggestion that it should be applied to the greater landscape of human dilemmas.

Philosophical discussions like the one linked here are great at making thought into a sport with no score. While engaging a dialog on how we know things with certainty is valuable, the idea that empiricism should be on par with armchair discussions is laughable.

A
R
T


I see that as a "mapping out" of abstract thinking. We all engage in abstract thinking. We all make inferences from diverse sense data that is coming at us. It is the job of philosophers to explore abstract thinking and perhaps to provide rules by which inferences can be made.


I get your point really, but you said it wrongly: We do all engage in thought, and all thought is abstract... If we consider how to move pieces on a chess board we do not move the pieces, but abstraction of the pieeces until we resolve to make a move... Since thought is abstract, the manipulation of abstractions, it is redundant to say abstract thinking...
mark noble
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:55 am
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

One man's neither is another man's both!

Kind regards.
mark...
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:00 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

failures art wrote:

Head in the clouds: Is Paris the Capitol of France?

I think the current exchange in that thread is a very excellent example of lost in the clouds. If philosophy cannot find consensus on if Paris is the capitol of France, I'm amused at the suggestion that it should be applied to the greater landscape of human dilemmas.

Philosophical discussions like the one linked here are great at making thought into a sport with no score. While engaging a dialog on how we know things with certainty is valuable, the idea that empiricism should be on par with armchair discussions is laughable.

A
R
T


I see that as a "mapping out" of abstract thinking. We all engage in abstract thinking. We all make inferences from diverse sense data that is coming at us. It is the job of philosophers to explore abstract thinking and perhaps to provide rules by which inferences can be made.


I get your point really, but you said it wrongly: We do all engage in thought, and all thought is abstract... If we consider how to move pieces on a chess board we do not move the pieces, but abstraction of the pieeces until we resolve to make a move... Since thought is abstract, the manipulation of abstractions, it is redundant to say abstract thinking...


Here here Fido, I never understand people who treat thought as a concrete, language for that matter as well.
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:08 am
@GoshisDead,
Could anyone indicate to me where there was an absence of agreement that Paris is the capital of France. This is a small point, I know, but someone cited this as an example of philosophers having their heads in the clouds, and there is no place in this thread where anyone disagreed, or even came close to disagreeing that Paris is the capital of France. So, the person who cited this as an example of heads in the clouds philosophy had better hunt himself up another example. (And try to read more closely).
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:14 am
@kennethamy,
he linked to the thread he found that example in,
http://able2know.org/topic/153674-1
and he was using that example to present his argument
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:14 am
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

Everyone here agrees that Paris is the capital of France.

Kind regards.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:14 am
@Fido,
"Abstract thinking" was my way of translating "pure reason" into colloquial English.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:15 am
@GoshisDead,
Quote:
I never understand people who treat thought as a concrete


Thought itself is not concrete, but its application can be. Mentally navigating one's way through the capitol of France: concrete and useful. Searching for epistemological proof that Paris is the capitol of France: less so.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:21 am
@Shapeless,
Hi Shapeless!

Is your and failures use of the word "Capitol" an americanism or a missprint? I only ask because it seems to be well used.

Thank you, and have a great day.
Mark...
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:25 am
@mark noble,
Ha... in my case it's a bit of a reflex. I'm in DC, so I tend to associate the capital with the Capitol.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:30 am
@Shapeless,
Hi Shapeless!

Thank you. I was curious, that's all.

Kind regards.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:33 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
... because it does not address the human condition.


oops, someone's got some bad info.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:34 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I just try to live small scale, much more honesty in that.

PS did you get the sambal-receipes ?

Reminds me of the words of a Taj Mahal song: "I try to take up just the space I really need." I might be smushing two songs together, but I think the refrain of the song is: "Every wind in the river... sure make its own way down to the sea."

That's philosophy.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:41 am
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:

Ha... in my case it's a bit of a reflex. I'm in DC, so I tend to associate the capital with the Capitol.

Ha. I'm a **** typer/speller, and I live in DC as well. Compound excuses from me. My apologies!

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 10:43 am
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:

Quote:
I never understand people who treat thought as a concrete


Thought itself is not concrete, but its application can be. Mentally navigating one's way through the capitol of France: concrete and useful. Searching for epistemological proof that Paris is the capitol of France: less so.

You've said in a quite concise manner what I've failed to communicate otherwise. Thank you.

A
R
T
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 11:07 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Shapeless wrote:

Quote:
I never understand people who treat thought as a concrete


Thought itself is not concrete, but its application can be. Mentally navigating one's way through the capitol of France: concrete and useful. Searching for epistemological proof that Paris is the capitol of France: less so.

You've said in a quite concise manner what I've failed to communicate otherwise. Thank you.

A
R
T


I would describe the discussion about "Paris is the capital of France" as an exploration (by use of a simple example) of how a truth-statement is synthesized. The goal is not specifically to determine the capital of France but to explore in general how a valid inference can be made.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/15/2019 at 08:05:01