How come that those who know nothing about philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 11:44 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131804 wrote:
And those people who teach philosophy in universities, and are paid to do so, who write articles in philosophical journals, who write books on philosophical topics, and who attend philosophical conferences and meetings, but do not have "that state of mind" whatever that is, what are they? Chopped liver?

Have you ever had any of that chopped chicken liver patte out of a new york deli??? That stuff is good, and I don't mean good in the philosophical sense either...I can tell I am on a diet...Everything reminds me of food...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:14 pm
@Fido,
Fido;131864 wrote:
Have you ever had any of that chopped chicken liver patte out of a new york deli??? That stuff is good, and I don't mean good in the philosophical sense either...I can tell I am on a diet...Everything reminds me of food...


It is called "chopped liver". It is good, but not for you.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131877 wrote:
It is called "chopped liver". It is good, but not for you.


I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad for you. Liver has a countless amount of vitamins and minerals and is also a good source of protein, along with the egg (which I believe is traditionally mixed in). And the schmaltz can easily be replaced with healthier oils.

The only thing I can think of that may be bad for you that you can't escape would be the excess amount of cholesterol found in the yolk of the egg (if it's added), and the liver. Also, the proteins may be heavily denatured depending on how it's processed, so you may not be able to utilize much of that protein.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 05:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131877 wrote:
It is called "chopped liver". It is good, but not for you.

I just ate three whites and one yolk...If you take care of them young you never have to face their guilty stares, and feel all bad about turning them into food...You know, I have had very little meat in the last 2 months, and mostly chicken breasts... I am starting to hang with that Eastern tyrant who became an enlightened ruler who asked: Why should I turn my stomach into a grave yard for animals??? It is funny I don't miss meat more, because I always enjoyed meat more.. I have lost close to thirty five pounds and a lot of round...
 
melonkali
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 07:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131804 wrote:
And those people who teach philosophy in universities, and are paid to do so, who write articles in philosophical journals, who write books on philosophical topics, and who attend philosophical conferences and meetings, but do not have "that state of mind" whatever that is, what are they? Chopped liver?


Is your list of what philosophers "do" a closed system? You learn philosophy so that you can teach philosophy and get published in journals or books for students of philosophy to read?

Where does philosophy, or where do philosophers, serve a useful function in the world outside of academia?

rebecca
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 08:08 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;131884 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad for you. Liver has a countless amount of vitamins and minerals and is also a good source of protein, along with the egg (which I believe is traditionally mixed in). And the schmaltz can easily be replaced with healthier oils.

The only thing I can think of that may be bad for you that you can't escape would be the excess amount of cholesterol found in the yolk of the egg (if it's added), and the liver. Also, the proteins may be heavily denatured depending on how it's processed, so you may not be able to utilize much of that protein.


And neither did I say, "necessarily". Of course, you can replace what is bad with healthier substitutes. But what's the good of that?
 
sarek
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 02:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131840 wrote:
They might, of course, have that state of mind (whatever that state of mind is). But suppose they did not. Would they not be philosophers? On the other hand, suppose there was someone who did have that "state of mind", but who never thought about philosophical problems, and was not connected with philosophy in any way. Would he still be a philosopher? Why? I think you should say more about that state of mind, and how we can tell someone has it.


If someone has that state of mind, would that not automatically imply an interest in things philosophical or at the very least a philosophical approach to all the questions of life?

Society unfortunately does not require a large number of paid philosophers. There are many out there that never enter the field because of the limited opportunities. I am not ready to exclude all of them from the definition of a philosopher.

The mind of a philosopher is a free mind. A mind unfettered by conventions and conventional wisdom. A mind also that does not perceive answers merely as final verdicts but as new questions in their own right.

A philosopher is someone who, when asked for his opinion, actually has one(or several lol) of his own and will do more than just quote someone else's opinion.
And maybe here is a useful litmus test. Just ask someone a random question about a complicated matter that has nothing to do with his line of work, his political or religious affiliations or his known hobbies.
Chances are most people will tell you they have never given it a thought and are not about to start now. But those that have or are willing to think about it are the ones we are looking for.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 05:21 am
@melonkali,
melonkali;132101 wrote:
Is your list of what philosophers "do" a closed system? You learn philosophy so that you can teach philosophy and get published in journals or books for students of philosophy to read?

Where does philosophy, or where do philosophers, serve a useful function in the world outside of academia?

rebecca

Utility is a great goal, but when it comes to understanding, no amount of knowledge can be considered useless even when it does not serve an immediate goal... I will tell you one thing: Not one bit of earth shaking insight will ever come out of an institution... The form teaches the form, and people have to break free of their forms to see all forms, and to know all about human relationships, and that is not likely... If philosophy schools had anything to offer they would have given it by now, because Western Society is breaking down, and has no understanding of why it is breaking, or how to fix itself...No form will fix what is essentially a problem with all forms, that they resist change, but also resist innovation, and adaptation..
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 05:42 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;132101 wrote:
Is your list of what philosophers "do" a closed system? You learn philosophy so that you can teach philosophy and get published in journals or books for students of philosophy to read?

Where does philosophy, or where do philosophers, serve a useful function in the world outside of academia?

rebecca
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 06:53 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132543 wrote:


Is it not also productive to understand and to clarify? Productivity need not always lead to some action. As John Milton wrote, "They also serve who only stand and wait". ("On His Blindness")
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:08 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132572 wrote:
Is it not also productive to understand and to clarify? Productivity need not always lead to some action. As John Milton wrote, "They also serve who only stand and wait". ("On His Blindness")
Uhmm ...naivity? :brickwall:
 
melonkali
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 04:16 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132572 wrote:
Is it not also productive to understand and to clarify? Productivity need not always lead to some action. As John Milton wrote, "They also serve who only stand and wait". ("On His Blindness")


Understand and clarify what? For what purpose?

rebecca
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 04:19 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;132979 wrote:
Understand and clarify what? For what purpose?

rebecca


For the sake of understanding and clarifying. That also is a goal.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 05:10 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132983 wrote:
For the sake of understanding and clarifying. That also is a goal.


Then solve this with all your philosophy.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7744-greater-logic.html

Quote:

2 garbage men, who had been in the buisness for 2 decades, who had sufferd foul odeurs through out their career, took on a vacation to Turkey and went to the perfume streets.
As they walked the one would become ill, and in the end fell to the ground. The helpful perfume sellers would aid the poor man with their smelling salts, but only making him go to a deeper coma.
The other garbage man would realize it was the thick odour in the street that caused the problem, and pulled his friend out to cleaner air, which helped and he would awaken from the coma.

Conclusion: each their scent.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:34 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132543 wrote:

I might divide them between productive and confusing...Some people want to keep it to themselves even if it is not fit for the trash... Every form, as philosophy is, is also a form of relationship and like every other such form seeks to exclude as well as include, but that is just an aesthetic value, and I think even of the misfits, as if they were not almost to a person, in my opinion, - even the nerds do some times wish to exclude, even though no one would ever wish such a thing upon themselves... Include me out... Philosophy as a form is best viewed from the outside...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 01:23:48