3
   

Formulating Philosophy Theories

 
 
Wozz
 
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 08:37 pm
I am making this thread because I am always interested in how people formulate their own theories. There can be no right way really so I'm hoping to see different techniques! Thanks everyone!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 2,271 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 10:29 pm
My personnel technique is basically to wait, gaze and think of nothing !
I do better when I am walking in natural environments...at some point I think on the problem coming from a previous empty mindset...I bear in mind that closely similar algorithms patterns are around me everywhere applied to different actuality´s also regarding that they may be the same solution to current subject under my microscope...I don´t focus on nothing in particular but I simply enjoy myself in a quiet state of mind.

...Think, pause and gaze, think again, pause and gaze once more...and I go on this for hours...(a very pleasing experience)

One odd remark is that I avoid books most of the time when to solve something...their purpose to me is to bring up critical mass and some order but hardly ever have they gave me an deeper insight...shocked ? Very Happy hope not !...
Wozz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 10:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Once you have your idea formed do you spend time tweaking it? Like making solving some questions people will have ahead of time...or do you not let that play a role in your idea? Very interesting!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 10:55 pm
@Wozz,
I do anticipate the possible set of objections to it almost a priori...its a very mind blank intuitive hard to explain process...when I come to a solution is close to final at least in the fundamentals...My interest goes normally to central issues, first natures, and mostly I look for equilibrium and aesthetic symmetry in the theory...its a sad obsession in my case...

My usual weakness goes to drawing the full extent of technocratic details around it...namely the conciliation with formal, way to long, and mostly useless approaches from academics...I tend to gather my efforts around the central purity of the concept, and on that I don´t save any efforts, but leave the remaining hard work to somebody else, mostly by releasing the idea on the web and letting it grow for itself...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 11:14 pm
...for instance I can give away an almost childish trick that I use and that for me works very well when to think on the intimate nature of some concept...
I repeat the word in my mind time and again until I feel it striped from its normal dressing, sort to speak...this usually leads me to a click awakening moment were clarity arrives...the concept then gets associated to my internal mind system making sense with everything else...
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 01:11 am
I think of the problem until it causes me anxiety then go about doing everything but think about it. Eventually the theory pops almost complete into my conscious at the most inopportune time.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 06:50 am
@Wozz,
Wozz wrote:

I am making this thread because I am always interested in how people formulate their own theories. There can be no right way really so I'm hoping to see different techniques! Thanks everyone!


Why can't there be a wrong way? If I formulate my theories by asking my four year old grandson to suggest one to me, that doesn't sound as if I will get far. Also, theories about what?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 06:51 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

I think of the problem until it causes me anxiety then go about doing everything but think about it. Eventually the theory pops almost complete into my conscious at the most inopportune time.


Is the theory any good?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 07:00 am
@kennethamy,
...is the good any theory ??? Mr. Green
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 07:31 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Years ago I paced back and forth all night long trying to figure out if the bombing of Hiroshima was right or wrong. The contrast between the pre-event perspective and the post-event one appeared. I realized that judgement is always post-event. You never judge the future... you judge a hypothetical construction as if it's already happened.

The only time I use the "blank mind" thing is if a certain word or phrase is driving me crazy. I blank out everything but that word or phrase and allow whatever comes next to appear without conscious influence. I did that once troubleshooting a piece of electronic equipment that I didn't feel like approaching logically. It didn't work, but after I fixed the thing, I realized that the image that had come to me was poetically the right answer. Poetry isn't always helpful in practical matters.
Wozz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 09:58 am
@kennethamy,
There is no wrong way because it will be different for all of us. As you can see there are already 3 different ways that have been posted and my way is actually opposite of theirs...kinda. Theories on anything! This is in the Philosophy section ;]
0 Replies
 
Wozz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 10:01 am
@Arjuna,
"Years ago I paced back and forth all night long trying to figure out if the bombing of Hiroshima was right or wrong. The contrast between the pre-event perspective and the post-event one appeared. I realized that judgement is always post-event. You never judge the future... you judge a hypothetical construction as if it's already happened."

Right? You cant judge the hypothetical outcomes of something. But then how do we know if that would be the real outcome? For instance...your example of the bombing of Hiroshima. Truman could have imagined something bad for the people of the city but in all reality what are the chances that he is correct? After all the bomb was never tested on humans and if it was what are the chances of the President witnessing it? Good post Arjuna
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 10:08 am
@kennethamy,
the theories work to annoy you, so I must be on the right track.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 10:40 am
@Wozz,
Wozz wrote:

Right? You cant judge the hypothetical outcomes of something. But then how do we know if that would be the real outcome? For instance...your example of the bombing of Hiroshima. Truman could have imagined something bad for the people of the city but in all reality what are the chances that he is correct? After all the bomb was never tested on humans and if it was what are the chances of the President witnessing it? Good post Arjuna
The pre-event perspective is amoral. The one will is not divided between good and bad. The will is a potential that encompasses all possibilities.

Looking back on the chain of actual events, one applies the scales of justice... having discovered a division between actual and ideal.

Two enraged gorillas can't apply morality to their conflict. Each is at the mercy of its own necessity.

Truman approved of the bombing of Hiroshima because war is hell. He had no way of knowing that his action would be the genesis of the Cold War, which would eventually cripple the spirit of his own people.

Good book: "The Fifty Year Wound" by Derek Leebaert.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 12:28 pm
@Wozz,
Just as philosophy starts with questions arising from problems so when we seek answers we solve them. However when the answer is a lot bigger than the prolem i.e. in your mind you discover solutions for many different similar problems you get a theory. It all starts with a problem then the question.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 02:38 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

Just as philosophy starts with questions arising from problems so when we seek answers we solve them. However when the answer is a lot bigger than the prolem i.e. in your mind you discover solutions for many different similar problems you get a theory. It all starts with a problem then the question.


What does it mean for the answer to be bigger than the problem, and how can you tell that is true? In any case if the answer is bigger than the problem (whatever that means) does that mean it is not the answer? So that the answer is not the answer? And what does that mean? What you have written does not make sense.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 03:05 pm
@kennethamy,
You didn't read it properly. The answer or solution is a theoryi.e. it answer not only the problem at hand but also others like it.

A starving child needs food. You give him a fish. Bi\ut you teach him to fish then you are going one step higher. You teach self reliance which solves more than just feeding the starving child hat one instance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Formulating Philosophy Theories
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/11/2020 at 09:03:19