26
   

what is the beggining of philosophy?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 02:08 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Moore continues to write that he thinks that his interest in philosophy is still motivated by what other philosophers say, and that he doesn't think that thinking about philosophical issues in themselves would motivate him to think about philosophy.
Sounds like an imaginative guy.


Well, he was a very smart guy. He with Bertrand Russell put paid to German Idealism in Britain. But, perhaps you should read him before making any precipitate judgments about his philosophizing.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 02:09 pm
@Render,
Render wrote:

Well you could start by spelling beginning right.


Don't you mean "beginning"? Since beginning is not a word, it cannot be spelled at all.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 02:46 pm
@kennethamy,
It was a word before the English language had a spelling system, it did not all of the sudden stop being a word.
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 02:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Philosophy is very basic; it seeks to answer the question, what and who am I?


Gee, I know the answer to those questions. Ask me something hard.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 03:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

kenneth, You're only looking at one issue. We are talking about the whole spectrum of belief and truth.


Could be, and I realize that I am not being as profound as you would like me to be, but still, isn't this a case when it is enough to understand fully to know the truth? And there are others just like it.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 03:10 pm
@kennethamy,
kenneth, Your simplistic idea of truth isn't what most of us on this blog are talking about. We're talking about philosophical truth.
mark noble
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 03:43 pm
Hi!

Spelling a word correctly is not as important as understanding what is being communicated. Pedantry is the weapon of the arrogant.

To me, the begginnninng of philosophy is the realisation that there may or may not be a purpose to anything.

Once you have decided to pursue either avenue, the journey is commenced.

Have a splendid journey, everyone!
Mark...
Razzleg
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 09:42 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Isn't Camus' answer to the question about suicide simply that since there is no good reason to do anything, there is no good reason to commit suicide? At least that is how I understand his, The Myth of Sisyphus.


Kind of.

First, i should probably clarify: when i wrote that "i like Camus' answer", i meant that i thought that the opening lines of The Myth of Sisyphus were a good response to the OP. In hindsight, i didn't phrase it very well to make that distinction clear or signal my intent.

But i do like Camus' work in general, so i have to admit that i find your summary of Camus' essay a little, well, summary. Camus addresses the subject of suicide from a particular, and (i think) rare, vantage point. His purpose is not to address suicide as a social, psychological, or emotional phenomenon. He is trying to examine and ultimately refute the efficacy of the act of suicide as a logical and ethical response to personal nihilism.

Near the beginning of the essay he makes the distinction between meaning and value, and much of the rest of the work is given to illustrating the positive value of life denuded of a comprehensive telos. A large portion of the work is simply a practical guide on how to live within nihilism, and it is one of the few examples i know of demonstrating an invigorating egress from nihilism from within nihilism itself (the few other examples i can think of are all novels).

i don't know how helpful The Myth of Sisyphus would be to the odd suicidal "man on the street", the likelihood is "not very"-- since nihilism is probably not their problem, and if they are on the street they may have already jumped. (Oh! suicide humor--i am disgusting.) But i still think that it is a pretty profound piece of writing, and i've come to appreciate it more the longer i've lived with it.

hmmm...i felt like my first post in this thread sounded pretty pompous and pretentious. i'm afraid my follow-up isn't much better. Sorry to derail the thread further.
Holiday20310401
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 11:29 pm
@jgweed,
I think that philosophy starts when one realizes a desire or need to be honest in an inquiry where previously there was no catching the mind at its own games in that way. A concern for truth is probably a tool employed in one’s concern for honesty, and honesty is also a tool employed for need of relief. Philosophy starts when one desires to tempt accepted truths and test one’s own honesty.

The mind starts churning and there begins the potential for philosophy, but philosophy itself does not begin right then. It is likely to begin, because ‘wonder’ –as the term is used- immediately implies a will towards honesty. Unlike wonder, confusion exemplifies more of a temperamental indecision when it comes to whether he will remain or become honest. I think that wonder would imply the same thing if not for the fact that this distinction between wonder and confusion has become dominant in those who actually still use both terms. Wonder is a term seen more and more with the same cheesy edge as has completely become of terms like greatness or evil.

One condition which is absolutely required for philosophy is persistence in thinking. It almost seems as if one could make an argument for the above that "no, these are the prerequisites for thinking, not philosophy". So I can't help but mention that, beyond wonder, a thinker needs persistence. It is too easy today to lack such a virtue. With the internet and google we can get information so easily and quickly that we decide not to look at other sources of information. Though there is so much on the internet, it is inevitable that there is a bias in what information is most likely to reach people. Persistence is then no longer seen as needed. We can access information really quickly, and get lots of it, and it feels like we're getting a lot of it, but then as we browse we hardly take time with any one thing. Then we feel far away from the idea of being proficient at many different skills that are unique to one another, because having a general knowledge base appeases our understanding and our conversations from growing in depth. So when I say persistence is required I mean for that quality of being able to focus one's efforts. Philosophy consists of goals, problems, inquiries, experiments, all of which require persistence to reach their conclusion. Persistence naturally inclines a person to grander problems, or, (sorry I've been reading Nietzsche) perhaps it's the person inclined to grander problems is naturally persistent. One thing philosophy loves is consisting of the greatest problems.

Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 06:02 am
@Holiday20310401,
Well put Holiday
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 10:44 am
@Holiday20310401,
Very good! That's the reason why I said earlier that philosophy is about "why and who am I?" We wish to learn what is real and not real in our short span of life on this planet. It gets very confusing because most humans believe in a religion that seems to conflict with what we are learning from science.

It's a difficult task, because wanting to believe in one's religion is important to live in this difficult environment where we have very little control.

We become the product of our biology and environment; who's to say what we learn and perceive are truly real?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 10:52 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

It was a word before the English language had a spelling system, it did not all of the sudden stop being a word.


What was a word? The word "beginning" was (certainly a word before any spelling system-and what has that to do with it anyway?) Look, let me make it eas(ier) for you. Just as the word, "cat" is not a cat, so, the word "beginning" is not a beginning. Words are one thing. What the words name are different things. And you are confusing the word "beginning" with what it names, namely, beginning.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 10:58 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi!

Spelling a word correctly is not as important as understanding what is being communicated. Pedantry is the weapon of the arrogant.

To me, the begginnninng of philosophy is the realisation that there may or may not be a purpose to anything.

Once you have decided to pursue either avenue, the journey is commenced.

Have a splendid journey, everyone!
Mark...




I agree that in most circumstances (but not all, for instance in spelling contests) knowing how to spell a word is not so important as understanding the meaning of a word. But then, I never said it was as important. So why mention it? However, even if it is not so important, that does not mean it is not important. It is always important to get things right instead of getting them wrong. Remember, we cannot conclude from the premise that X is less important than Y that X is not important. That would be fallacious.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:09 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Isn't Camus' answer to the question about suicide simply that since there is no good reason to do anything, there is no good reason to commit suicide? At least that is how I understand his, The Myth of Sisyphus.


Kind of.

First, i should probably clarify: when i wrote that "i like Camus' answer", i meant that i thought that the opening lines of The Myth of Sisyphus were a good response to the OP. In hindsight, i didn't phrase it very well to make that distinction clear or signal my intent.

But i do like Camus' work in general, so i have to admit that i find your summary of Camus' essay a little, well, summary. Camus addresses the subject of suicide from a particular, and (i think) rare, vantage point. His purpose is not to address suicide as a social, psychological, or emotional phenomenon. He is trying to examine and ultimately refute the efficacy of the act of suicide as a logical and ethical response to personal nihilism.

Near the beginning of the essay he makes the distinction between meaning and value, and much of the rest of the work is given to illustrating the positive value of life denuded of a comprehensive telos. A large portion of the work is simply a practical guide on how to live within nihilism, and it is one of the few examples i know of demonstrating an invigorating egress from nihilism from within nihilism itself (the few other examples i can think of are all novels).

i don't know how helpful The Myth of Sisyphus would be to the odd suicidal "man on the street", the likelihood is "not very"-- since nihilism is probably not their problem, and if they are on the street they may have already jumped. (Oh! suicide humor--i am disgusting.) But i still think that it is a pretty profound piece of writing, and i've come to appreciate it more the longer i've lived with it.

hmmm...i felt like my first post in this thread sounded pretty pompous and pretentious. i'm afraid my follow-up isn't much better. Sorry to derail the thread further.


I was not pretending to discuss Camus's reasons for his view. For those interested in that, I recommend reading the book. But, that there is no good reason for committing suicide because there is no good reason for doing any particular thing, is certainly the "bottom line" of what Camus is arguing. And that is all I even pretended to present. Even in the face of profundity, it is well to try to understand what the main point of the profundity is. Else, one may miss the point and be left holding the profundity. (Although I am sure some people would not mind that, and maybe think that the profundity was the main point. Those are people who don't care what a writer says (or even whether he says anything much at all) just as long as he says it profoundly.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:16 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

It was a word before the English language had a spelling system, it did not all of the sudden stop being a word.


What was a word? The word "beginning" was (certainly a word before any spelling system-and what has that to do with it anyway?) Look, let me make it eas(ier) for you. Just as the word, "cat" is not a cat, so, the word "beginning" is not a beginning. Words are one thing. What the words name are different things. And you are confusing the word "beginning" with what it names, namely, beginning.


No i confuse nothing the word beginning was a word before the English orthography and it is a word without an orthography. What you are confusing is your need to be right with reality.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:19 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

kenneth, Your simplistic idea of truth isn't what most of us on this blog are talking about. We're talking about philosophical truth.


And perhaps you can explain how philosophical truth differs from plain old truth. For instance do they coincide, or are they opposed? For example, it is a plain old truth that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Now, I suppose you would tell me that is not a philosophical truth, and I am prepared to believe that since I don't think that any philosopher would discuss the truth that Quito is the capital of Ecuador (except as an example as I have done here). But does that mean that it is not true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador? I suppose my question is how to tell the difference between plain old unphilosophical truths, and philosophical truths. I expect that what you tell me will be a philosophical truth-or will it be?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:28 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

It was a word before the English language had a spelling system, it did not all of the sudden stop being a word.


What was a word? The word "beginning" was (certainly a word before any spelling system-and what has that to do with it anyway?) Look, let me make it eas(ier) for you. Just as the word, "cat" is not a cat, so, the word "beginning" is not a beginning. Words are one thing. What the words name are different things. And you are confusing the word "beginning" with what it names, namely, beginning.




No i confuse nothing the word beginning was a word before the English orthography and it is a word without an orthography. What you are confusing is your need to be right with reality.


But, as I keep pointing out to you, beginning is not a word at all. Beginning is the start of something. It is "beginning" that is a word. Let me try to explain once again, by example. The word, "cat" is a word. Some of its properties are: it starts with the letter, 'c' ; it has four letters; it precedes the word, "dog" in the dictionary. On the other hand a cat is not a word. A cat has no letters. A cat is a mammal. A cat like milk. A cat climbs trees. A cat say "meow". Now, what could be more different from the word, "cat" then a cat? And what would be more different from the word, "beginning" than a beginning? Words and things are different from one another. And you seem to be confusing them.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

It was a word before the English language had a spelling system, it did not all of the sudden stop being a word.


What was a word? The word "beginning" was (certainly a word before any spelling system-and what has that to do with it anyway?) Look, let me make it eas(ier) for you. Just as the word, "cat" is not a cat, so, the word "beginning" is not a beginning. Words are one thing. What the words name are different things. And you are confusing the word "beginning" with what it names, namely, beginning.




No i confuse nothing the word beginning was a word before the English orthography and it is a word without an orthography. What you are confusing is your need to be right with reality.


But, as I keep pointing out to you, beginning is not a word at all. Beginning is the start of something. It is "beginning" that is a word. Let me try to explain once again, by example. The word, "cat" is a word. Some of its properties are: it starts with the letter, 'c' ; it has four letters; it precedes the word, "dog" in the dictionary. On the other hand a cat is not a word. A cat has no letters. A cat is a mammal. A cat like milk. A cat climbs trees. A cat say "meow". Now, what could be more different from the word, "cat" then a cat? And what would be more different from the word, "beginning" than a beginning? Words and things are different from one another. And you seem to be confusing them.


Oh no someone is playingthe signifier/signified game, whatever will I do. Silly way to try to get out of being called out for being a spelling nazi.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 12:05 pm
@kennethamy,
Quito is a simple truth; it has nothing to do with philosophy.

Do you believe the earth is spinning/rotating or the sun is rising?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 02:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
Thank you all for the replies, All of you are very wise, good catch on the [beggining] misspelling kennethamy. I do have to ask though, What is the fourth letter in the word cat that you say is there and I am not seeing?
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
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 09:09:28