Are we engaging in philosophy?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:59 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;158114 wrote:
oops --mea culpa.

rebecca


Tua maxima culpa
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:00 pm
@wayne,
melonkali;158114 wrote:
oops --mea culpa.

rebecca



aww shucks. I was just starting to like you, and then you went and said that.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:19 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;158121 wrote:
aww shucks. I was just starting to like you, and then you went and said that.


Don't you like people who speak Latin? What do you think all those millions of people in Latin America speak? Spanish?
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:46 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157997 wrote:
I don't know what road you are talking about, since you never say, but I hope that truth and understanding are at the end of that road, whatever that road is. Don't you?


Yes, that is exactly my hope, and belief.
I do think ,though, that there will always be that vanishing point in front of us.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:51 pm
@wayne,
wayne;157702 wrote:
I am beginning to notice a difference between arguing philosophy and engaging in philosophy.
For this purpose I will view philosophy as if standing on a road, from my perspective the road stretches to a vanishing point in the distance.

I want to distinguish between my position on the road and the view down the road.
It seems that quite often we are arguing from our position on the road.
I'll define this as arguing philosophy.
I define engaging in philosophy as attempting to move down the road, extending the vanishing point .
By this view, philosophy is never perfected, yet , always moving down the road.
Do you see the difference I am suggesting.?
Are we more often, arguing "A" philosophy, rather than engaging in philosophy?
If you are interested, use this thread to demonstrate and explore the difference.


Great post. I suggest a balance. Are we seeking answers? Or is the journey itself the destination?

A mortal beings in a world like this, we probably can't help wanting some kind of working solution or general response to the problem/gift of existence. It matters whether we think there is a god, afterlife, universal ethics, etc. It's hard for us to be completely neutral on such matters.

But once one has something worked out along this line, one can play with ideas that enrich, a multitude of perspectives. It seems to me that all real friendship is based on an ability to open oneself to the perspective of the other. One must put aside one's isms, at least a little bit. But friendship is difficult when we are dealing with nothing but words on a screen. Empathy and affection are what motivates us to bend. And yet here we are strangers who mostly won't even show our faces to one another..and perhaps with good reason..perhaps faces betray too much. It's easier to drag out real or imagined credentials. It's easier to talk sh*t.

My ideal forum is a place where enthusiasts gather to share their enthusiasm first, and arguments later. Philosophy is a specialty interest. It's nice to find others who read the books one loves. It's nice to talk about grand issues. I used to wonder why this forum was not more populated. I see now that it's no fault of this particular forum but a fault of internet forums in general. Live conversation is balanced by empathy, affection, the living presence of the other...and even the possibility of getting kicked in the stomach for a malicious statement....:flowers:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;158142 wrote:

My ideal forum is a place where enthusiasts gather to share their enthusiasm first, and arguments later. Philosophy is a specialty interest.


I am sure there are such forums all around the internet. Just not philosophy forums. Try, for example, philately forums, or cooking forums, or numismatic forums.
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:23 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;158142 wrote:
Great post. I suggest a balance. Are we seeking answers? Or is the journey itself the destination?

A mortal beings in a world like this, we probably can't help wanting some kind of working solution or general response to the problem/gift of existence. It matters whether we think there is a god, afterlife, universal ethics, etc. It's hard for us to be completely neutral on such matters.

But once one has something worked out along this line, one can play with ideas that enrich, a multitude of perspectives. It seems to me that all real friendship is based on an ability to open oneself to the perspective of the other. One must put aside one's isms, at least a little bit. But friendship is difficult when we are dealing with nothing but words on a screen. Empathy and affection are what motivates us to bend. And yet here we are strangers who mostly won't even show our faces to one another..and perhaps with good reason..perhaps faces betray too much. It's easier to drag out real or imagined credentials. It's easier to talk sh*t.

My ideal forum is a place where enthusiasts gather to share their enthusiasm first, and arguments later. Philosophy is a specialty interest. It's nice to find others who read the books one loves. It's nice to talk about grand issues. I used to wonder why this forum was not more populated. I see now that it's no fault of this particular forum but a fault of internet forums in general. Live conversation is balanced by empathy, affection, the living presence of the other...and even the possibility of getting kicked in the stomach for a malicious statement....:flowers:



I used the road and the vanishing point to try and portray what you are saying about the search for answers, working solutions and the journey.
I think it is all of those things, the balance, as you say, is important.
Every working solution is a fixed point along the road, we should always remain open to ways to move those solutions down the road.

There are many different people on this forum. Some of us are more light hearted, seat of the pants kind of people, while others are very academic and exacting. There is ( ideally ) a balance between the two that can be very productive when we try to understand each other.
So true, what I hear you say about the difficulty of this, but I think we can do that, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt, as we are easily misunderstood.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:31 pm
@wayne,
wayne;158160 wrote:
I used the road and the vanishing point to try and portray what you are saying about the search for answers, working solutions and the journey.
I think it is all of those things, the balance, as you say, is important.
Every working solution is a fixed point along the road, we should always remain open to ways to move those solutions down the road.

There are many different people on this forum. Some of us are more light hearted, seat of the pants kind of people, while others are very academic and exacting. There is ( ideally ) a balance between the two that can be very productive when we try to understand each other.
So true, what I hear you say about the difficulty of this, but I think we can do that, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt, as we are easily misunderstood.


I think that if the issue requires being exact, then you should be exact about it. If not, then not. If you are adding up a column of figures in order to answer the question, how much money there is in your account, I would advise being exact. If, on the other hand, you are leaving a tip for a waiter, and you think that fifteen percent is right, then you can go over or under by a little bit. You can be lighthearted about it. In logical matters, lightheartedness is not recommended.
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;158164 wrote:
I think that if the issue requires being exact, then you should be exact about it. If not, then not. If you are adding up a column of figures in order to answer the question, how much money there is in your account, I would advise being exact. If, on the other hand, you are leaving a tip for a waiter, and you think that fifteen percent is right, then you can go over or under by a little bit. You can be lighthearted about it. In logical matters, lightheartedness is not recommended.


Exactly correct sir.
This makes a good example of the balance between the persons here.
You are far more exact and academic than I am, when I assume, or get lazy, or otherwise fail to be exact in my descriptions, I know that you will call me to task. I learn from this ( slowly, very slowly). That has a great value to me, it requires that I give you the benefit of the doubt, else I might think you dense, which you are not.
Books can't do for me what is done in my discourse with someone like you.
Don't ever think I don't place a high value on your time spent arguing, discussing with me. Smile
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:23 pm
@wayne,
I second that (with some caveats:bigsmile:).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:23 pm
@wayne,
wayne;158181 wrote:
Exactly correct sir.
This makes a good example of the balance between the persons here.
You are far more exact and academic than I am, when I assume, or get lazy, or otherwise fail to be exact in my descriptions, I know that you will call me to task. I learn from this ( slowly, very slowly). That has a great value to me, it requires that I give you the benefit of the doubt, else I might think you dense, which you are not.
Books can't do for me what is done in my discourse with someone like you.
Don't ever think I don't place a high value on your time spent arguing, discussing with me. Smile


Only I don't see what it has to do with a balance between persons. It has to do with having an appropriate approach toward what you are dealing with.It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits. ~ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:13 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;158186 wrote:
Only I don't see what it has to do with a balance between persons. It has to do with having an appropriate approach toward what you are dealing with.It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits. ~ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics


Not all intelligent men are educated, not all educated men are intelligent.
I'm using "intelligent" loosely here.
The appropriate approach for an educated man may differ from the appropriate approach for an uneducated man.
That these two find a balance of communication seems vital to me.
If we were writing a text book here ,the level of precision required would be much higher, of course. But we are not writing a text book.
What is important here, is that we understand and respect each other well enough to facilitate an exchange of thoughts and ideas.
That doesn't require that I become academic ,only that I learn to communicate with the academic, and that the academic learn to communicate with me.
That is a balance of responsibility between persons.

If you want to write a textbook later feel free. Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:20 pm
@wayne,
wayne;158216 wrote:
Not all intelligent men are educated, not all educated men are intelligent.
I'm using "intelligent" loosely here.
The appropriate approach for an educated man may differ from the appropriate approach for an uneducated man.
That these two find a balance of communication seems vital to me.
If we were writing a text book here ,the level of precision required would be much higher, of course. But we are not writing a text book.
What is important here, is that we understand and respect each other well enough to facilitate an exchange of thoughts and ideas.
That doesn't require that I become academic ,only that I learn to communicate with the academic, and that the academic learn to communicate with me.
That is a balance of responsibility between persons.

If you want to write a textbook later feel free. Smile


But Aristotle was not saying that only educated men should approach a problem appropriately. He was setting the educated man as a standard for how we should all think. He was not being relativistic about it.
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:29 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;158221 wrote:
But Aristotle was not saying that only educated men should approach a problem appropriately. He was setting the educated man as a standard for how we should all think. He was not being relativistic about it.


Sure, I can understand that.

What I'm essentially saying ,though, is that the internet is not the dark tent of academia, it has changed all of that forever.
Do you not think you have some responsibity to help bridge the gap that often appears here between the academic and the intelligent "common man?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:38 pm
@wayne,
wayne;158224 wrote:
Sure, I can understand that.

What I'm essentially saying ,though, is that the internet is not the dark tent of academia, it has changed all of that forever.
Do you not think you have some responsibity to help bridge the gap that often appears here between the academic and the intelligent "common man?


Indeed. And that is just what I think I am doing on this forum. Why don't you think that is what I am doing? That is exactly why I don't discuss only strictly philosophical subjects, but political and social subjects as they come up. And I try to apply critical thinking to them just as I do to a problem like free will, or knowledge. It is disappointing for me that you doubt that is what I am doing.
 
wayne
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 12:26 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;158227 wrote:
Indeed. And that is just what I think I am doing on this forum. Why don't you think that is what I am doing? That is exactly why I don't discuss only strictly philosophical subjects, but political and social subjects as they come up. And I try to apply critical thinking to them just as I do to a problem like free will, or knowledge. It is disappointing for me that you doubt that is what I am doing.


This has been my estimate of you all along. Sorry to have caused you disappointment through a misunderstanding.
I don't doubt at all that that is what you are doing here, I have great respect for your contribution. If you recall my PM exchange when I first came aboard, you may rest assured that I am still possessed of my original understanding of you.

I do find you to be somewhat of a task master at times, and I have some difficulty with the academic gap. I just wish you would let me know ,once in a while that you understand that.
This is the first confirmation, of my estimation of you being correct, that I have recieved since the tiny Smile in the original PM exchange. I need a little validation of my perceptions now and again or I start doubting myself.

I am more than pleased to know that my estimate of you is correct, I will continue to treat you as such, accepting your humaness, learning as best I can.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 12:59 am
@wayne,
Are we engaging over philosophy? IMO it must be easy to understand. I mistrust definitions, prefer down to earth filosofie.

European spelling
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 01:10 am
@wayne,
a lot of philosophy consists of trying to define words you think you know the meaning of.
 
wayne
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 01:12 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;158276 wrote:
Are we engaging over philosophy? IMO it must be easy to understand. I mistrust definitions, prefer down to earth filosofie.

European spelling


I too need some down to earth reparte'. I'm a pretty earthy guy, but above average.
Sometimes those double entenderes and flip replies create the "AHA" moments that technical jargon doesn't do for me.
Must be a learning disability, deal with it. Smile
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 01:20 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;158281 wrote:
a lot of philosophy consists of trying to define words you think you know the meaning of.


I try to deconstruct all definitions. Break them into words and study the roots. Time consuming. Circumstance helped and took away health and financial securities. I am left with bits & bythes of info. Digits. I am an analoog being; how to digest ?

Cooking is a teaching; U learn the ingredients combined

Some Philosophers lay the framework, others live a inspired life. Now just how to communicate with each of the Workers. We are all Fools in believing we love Sophia above all !
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 10:03:48