8
   

Is philosophy dependent on humanity?

 
 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It probably works pretty well as a course in college to discuss specific areas of knowledge and perception, but reality is subjective to each individual. Just the topic of religion will never be solved in any class. It becomes more complex when you have three or four different religious students and several atheists to discuss why their realities are more viable than the others. It just cannot be done.


And why should that keep me, or anyone for that matter, from asking unambiguous questions?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 10:17 pm
@Ding an Sich,
It doesn't stop anyone from asking questions, but the answers will not always be agreeable.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It doesn't stop anyone from asking questions, but the answers will not always be agreeable.


So?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 10:19 pm
@Ding an Sich,
So, knowing that there will never be agreement, why even ask the question? What do you expect from such an exchange?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 10:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm afraid I have to side with Ding an Sich on this, Tak. You're an out-and-out pragmatist who can't see the value of something that's unlikely to lead to anything like general agreement. That's not how philosophers think, generally, and I have to agree with them. The purpose of a reasoned discussion is not to convince anyone else but to clarify and express my own thoughts. My 'truth' might not be your 'truth' at all. That's OK. We can agree to disagree and still keep searching for what we consider to be larger truths, regardless of whether others agree with us or not.
PhilipOSopher
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 06:14 am
@Ding an Sich,
My apologies DaS, I'm new to this online forum stuff! I completely agree with you - it almost defeats the point of discussion if we don't know exactly what we're discussing, I'll work on being more explicit in future posts.
Regarding your idea that philosophy is an inevitable part of man, by 'must' do you mean that philosophising is almost like a moral obligation (seems interesting!)? Or (there may be more than these two ways of interpreting this) that philosophy is inescapable, so we must philosophise because it is inevitable. Even a person who many may described as amoral because of a lack of compassion for others, for example, will have their own justification of their actions, e.g, as an egoist. And this must apply to more than just morality, surely (apologies again - our philosophy lessons at school are really ethics-based!)?
Phil (www.philosophersblogofideas.blog.com)
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 09:19 am
@PhilipOSopher,
PhilipOSopher wrote:

My apologies DaS, I'm new to this online forum stuff!


All good.

PhilipOSopher wrote:

I completely agree with you - it almost defeats the point of discussion if we don't know exactly what we're discussing, I'll work on being more explicit in future posts.


Sounds good.

PhilipOSopher wrote:

Regarding your idea that philosophy is an inevitable part of man, by 'must' do you mean that philosophising is almost like a moral obligation (seems interesting!)? Or (there may be more than these two ways of interpreting this) that philosophy is inescapable, so we must philosophise because it is inevitable.


Philosophizing with the intent to form a position is a sufficient, and not necessary, condition for having a philosophy. There are plenty of people that don't philosophize, but have a philosophy (or outlook on life, or whatever you want to call it).

I would say that if you're going to be moral, you have to consciously inculcate yourself with a good philosophy. Whether the philosophical position you accept in toto was created by you or taken from previous thinkers is completely up to you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 10:04 am
@Lustig Andrei,
I agree that philosophy is
Quote:
phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a particular system of philosophical thought.
plural noun: philosophies
"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
"the philosophy of science"

synonyms: thinking, thought, reasoning
"the philosophy of Aristotle"


But, I still believe it has its limits for most 'students' of philosophy, since we are the product of our subjective realities. Yes, we can 'learn' from the exchange of ideas, but the primary driver of our lives based on our subjective perception and reality will have very little, if any, impact.

I also believe the two drivers of individuals are our beliefs in religion (or nonreligion) and politics. These particular branches of knowledge are so varied and non-predictable that even scholars have difficulty tying down their 'realities.'
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 10:40 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
…..You don't know if cats, dogs, fleas, bacterium, the atom and the neutron reason and philosophize.
Blue you miss the point: In an analog world where do you draw the line between a college prof and an ignorant workman; between him and a mentally-retarded; between a humanoid and an ape, etc

All such dualistic distinctions, important for everyday communication, nonetheless arbitrary in their application; subjective, not universal per Cis above; wholly human concept per Andy
0 Replies
 
PhilipOSopher
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 01:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What about the construct of human constructs as a whole? Could that not be the objective totality of subjective human philosophies (or is this missing the point?)?
Phil (www.philosophersblogofideas.blog.com)
thus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 01:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
did you conclude that your self or from others?

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 01:56 pm
@PhilipOSopher,
Quote:
, are philosophy and the capacities of both reasoning and thought within it transcendent concepts or are they things that are invented by/only make sense if there are human beings to use them?

Laughing
All concepts, including "philosophy" and"transcendence", are products of human interaction.
We can say nothing more about a concept other than to attempt to discuss its comparative contextual utility.


0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 02:11 pm
@PhilipOSopher,
We are the product of our genes and our environment. How any individual 'turns out' is subjective in what many deem as an objective world.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 02:12 pm
@thus,
From my subjective viewpoint of the world.
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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/13/2021 at 05:59:49