Why Philosophize?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;106137 wrote:

One might say it is the difference between looking at an idea from the inside or from the outside, so to speak.

I'll press this statement to a point. Again, inside or outside what? If the man and the idea of a man is the same thing, then who is doing the looking at what from where?

If the man is looking at the idea of a man, then they are separate agents, regardless of inside or outside. If the man is identical to the idea of a man, then how does the looking take place and what allows for the inside/outside perspective?

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106168 wrote:

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 06:25 PM ----------

Quote:
Then it is not there to your reality. That does not speak to my reality. An hour ago I had no conception of you. That certainly doesn't mean that you came into reality only an hour ago. You may have come into my reality, but my reality is one that acknowledges the existence of other realities, including yours. Robert Anton Wilson calls it the Reality Tunnel.

You still do not have a concept of me in the proper sense...We conceive of people as a set value, which is not true to anyone... We all recognize that while we talk of our selves as fixed, we are the sum of all our experience, and a work in progress, which is to say an infinite...For this reason it is impossible to judge individuals or humanity with fairness... Judgement is knowledge said Kant, but knowledge is also form... What we do not know, and it is impossible to "Know" people as infintes we cannot properly conceive of them... We can conceive of ourselves, and if you can believe what you hear from people, often falsely...Men are all the heroes of their stories as though they were climbing mountains or slaying dragons, but they may only have only been rolling out of bed and driving to work...But only they know what they feel and what they have overcome at what odds...It does often happen that people conceive of others as Vonegutts Kilgore Trout, as machines... Would mass murderers be able to ply their trade if they did not conceive of people as objects before making them so???

Quote:

Perhaps to your reality. Not mine.

Well yes, really...All forms/ideas/concepts/notions are conserved values... The concept means the thing...You say the name, which is an essential part of the concept, and you mean the name thing, its identity...

Quote:

Do you know what the term "image/object association" means? Or perhaps the phrase "the medium is never the message"?

You know heidegger covers this stuff in great detail, and I do mean detail since the original German has in single word roots detail is would take much English to express... Simply ask your self... If I were seeing something for the first time what I have never seen anything like, how can I say what it is... Before we have a concept we need more than one thing, and when we have two we can classify our knowledge, which is to make a judgement... We judge a dog a dog on the basis of knowledge of dogs, and this knowledge is our concept... The differences between a real dog, and the conceptual dog are profound... A concept must express all the known qualities of a finite object common to all examples, and is in a sense perfect... Since all dogs do not have fur we cannot say that is an attribute of all dog unless we do as we seem to do, and call a dog without fur an exception to the rule, and a hairless dog... One may have trouble telling the differences between a fox and a dog, or a dog and a jackle; but the greater our understanding is, the easier this exercise becomes... Knowledge is judgment, and this is also what a form, or an idea is...The concept of a dog is all knowledge we can express as common to all dogs, and it is open ended... Every true dog tests the concept and every concept measures the dog...

Quote:

Form is not "ideal" any more than form is "function". One expresses the other, but they are not the same.

Wrong again...Every form is ideal... The form of the circle is always perfectly spherical, and no real form can be shown to be perfect...Justice is never perfect, but to be useful at all justice must be conceived of as ideal we can conceive of individual dogs as less than ideal, you know, occasionally craping on the carpet, but how would that inform us, and so be useful???The conceptual dog is the perfect, which is to say: Ideal dog...And form does follow function...To say what a thing is we must know what it does, its purpose...If you cannot say what a thing does you cannot define it, but only attempt to describe it, and again, that definition is a bit of knowledge, and judgement...Every word in the dictionary is a form, and a distinct idea....Each includes an identity, a definiton, a funtion, and a relationship, and all told is a bit of knowledge...

Quote:
Where is the form that is a unicorn?

There is no true form of a unicorn, or a griffin, or a sphinx, or a life, or a reality, or an existence, or a God...There is no knowledge of the thing because there is no thing... It is not simply a composite of other things we can conceive, but can reflect no knowledge our way... We build up the infinite with bits of our own reality, but it holds no knowledge so it is not a form...

Quote:
How do we end up with something, that has no being? If there was no "being", then what exactly have we ended up with?

All we can have is finite knowledge... If we do not have a finite bit of reality to study we cannot conceive of it, we cannot form any certain idea of its qualities or classify it as distinct...If we have a bit of something infinite, like existence or God we cannot judge it as having a certain value, as meaning is unless we fill in our blanks with our own imagination, but then, since we cannot speak to a certain being we suggest only a certain meaning and this meaning we supply out of our own being, our lives...In this sense God is given life by humanity because when we give an infinite meaning we are giving it out of the storehouse of our own lives...

Quote:

Is the notion of "try to conceive" real? If not, then how do you support your conception of reality? If so, where is the supposedly required form to associate with the idea?

...................
I have no conception of reality because it is infinite...I can judge the bits and pieces of reality that I can see, and that seem finite; but of the rest I cannot judge, so i cannot know...And it is work... If you consider the extensive application of syllogism in medieval philosophy what you are seeing is people working on basic definitions, telling this from that...And it is work...Though all forms are perfect, none can be called complete... Every example tests the form... We recognize the reality by the form, but the form can never prove the reality...It is the other way around...If we find a dog that shares some characteristics of a cat, then the form of Dog must be modified, or a new form for the cat dog is created... The more we actually know about a phenomenon the more involved becomes the form...Yet, because of forms each generation is able to build on the aquired knowledge of the previous generation...
--------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 07:51 PM ----------

kennethamy;106184 wrote:

Even if that were true, and I really do not understand what you mean, why would that make a difference? Since the idea of the Eiffel Tower in lodged in my head, and since the Eiffel Tower is in the center of Paris, and so, they are in two different places, how could they be identical? Can you give me any example of what you mean? How can I become an elephant by believing I am an elephant?

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 07:37 PM ----------

Maybe having the concept of a dog is necessary for recognizing a dog. But what has that to do with whether the concept of a dog is itself a dog? Nothing that I can see.

The concept of a dog is not a dog but is identical to the dog... If you define a dog you have the concept of a dog... Every essential detail of a dog is contained in its form...

@Fido,

Fido;106191 wrote:

The concept of a dog is not a dog but is identical to the dog...

Do you suppose that your concept of a dog and mine are the same? Which one of our concepts is identical to a dog?

What is your concept of my dog? How is my dog dependent upon your concept of him/her?

Are not our concepts limited to our perceptions? What have you perceived of my dogs gender?

Fido;106191 wrote:

If you define a dog you have the concept of a dog...

So... definition = concept = object? I thought definitions described objects. Upon the new Hubble telescope, our observations increased, expanding our perceptions, widening our definitions, enlarging our conceptual understand of...

Which one of these activities changed the universe?

Only our conceptual understanding changed. The universe remains the same. How can this be if concept and object are equals?

Fido;106191 wrote:

Every essential detail of a dog is contained in its form...

How are these details perceived? Do you suppose that all details are equal? Could there be a difference between subjective details and objective details?

For instance, subjective details are dependent upon an observer authoring a description. Your description may say "small, furry, cute". Mine might say, "miniature, harry, charming". Which one of our observational descriptions IS the dog?

Objective details are not described, they are read. The only thing we can read of a dog is its DNA. Two biologists will read the exact same code from the DNA of a dog. That code is objective, and a cloning facility or forensics will confirm the two or more biologists findings. They will all read the exact same information. They are not "describing" an observation... They are "reading" a code.

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon,

Maybe this will help. Maybe not. But I will try. Believing in an idea may be likened to 'looking from the inside'. Accepting that an idea exists, that it is believed in by another, may be likened to 'looking from the outside'. It is a question of how one experiences the idea.

You and I seem to differ primarily in the level of precision we, obviously, employ. I tend to be more loose than you are, at least judging from your very good parsing below. I regret if this causes unnecessary misunderstandings. Perhaps in time, if we get to know one another better in this forum, we will understand one another more.

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;106200 wrote:

Maybe this will help.

It certainly helps me to understand your analogy.

PappasNick;106200 wrote:

Maybe not.

Not indeed, for I don't understand how you can believe what you say.

PappasNick;106200 wrote:

Believing in an idea may be likened to 'looking from the inside'.

Based upon your previous comments, as I understand you, then your statement can remain true to your essence of meaning if I exchange the word "idea" for "what one is" and/or "a certain kind of man. Thus... your statements could effectively read...

"Believing in what one is may be likened to 'looking from the inside'.

and...

Accepting that a certain kind of man exists, that a certain kind of man is believed in by another?... (by another, do you mean "idea" or "certain kind of man?), may be likened to 'looking from the outside'.

It is a question of how an idea experiences what one is (or) a certain kind of man.

Do you not see the circular reasoning of this position? If man and idea are the same, then it ultimately concludes that ideas (as man) can experience. How may an idea experience? I thought ideas were the end result of experience.

PappasNick;106200 wrote:

You and I seem to differ primarily in the level of precision we, obviously, employ.

Not primarily, sorry, no offense really. I'm desperately attempting to find resolve in this particular philosophy of yours. Philosophy, for centuries, has endured the utmost critical inspection from the most brilliant minds the world has ever known. This is expected of philosophy. Anything less is just casual conversation.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 09:34 PM ----------

PappasNick;106200 wrote:

...we will understand one another more.

Hey, believe it or not, I actually do understand what you are saying, and to a certain degree, your philosophy of "man is idea" is something I entirely agree with. Yep, that's right... I'm just wanting you to defend it more efficiently. May we sum up your philosophy with the old phrase...

"Out of the mouth speaks the heart"?

You'll notice my challenge to you has prompted others to join in, and by challenging me, they splinter the discussion off to promote other philosophies that I personally do not accept.

Your insight that "man is idea" has unwittingly spring boarded apparent support that image IS object. This is unfortunate.

I believe it can be resolved. Does your philosophy that "man is idea" promote that that is all that man is? What of the flesh, blood and bone? (careful, I might be tricking you :rolleyes:) And without using your synonym of "man", can you further explain what you consider an "idea" to be and how they are created? How can we know that an "idea" even exists?

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106196 wrote:

Quote:
Do you suppose that your concept of a dog and mine are the same? Which one of our concepts is identical to a dog?
Absolutly the same... And yet philosophy is about resolving different conclusions regarding our forms and our realities...It is through forms that we express a certain meaning for a certain reality...A scientist will define a dog differntly than a child, but each definition has the identity of Dog

Quote:
What is your concept of my dog? How is my dog dependent upon your concept of him/her?
Your dog, if it is a dog has the common characteristics of all dogs...Those characteristics hold the definition and identity of "Dog".

Quote:
Are not our concepts limited to our perceptions? What have you perceived of my dogs gender?

The limit of our concepts is our knowledge...No definition is complete, so no form is complete, and while we can use our forms as templates of sorts for the recreation of reality, as the form is flawed so will be the reality flawed...Of your dog's gender, the answer is Yes...Since dogs are dieocious, they all naturally have gender...

Quote:
So... definition = concept = object? I thought definitions described objects. Upon the new Hubble telescope, our observations increased, expanding our perceptions, widening our definitions, enlarging our conceptual understand of...
No; the form is identical to the object conceived, and is not the equal of the object conceived...Definitions describe finite objects, and every form may be reduced to a list of definitions

Quote:

Which one of these activities changed the universe?

Only our conceptual understanding changed. The universe remains the same. How can this be if concept and object are equals?

We change the universe every time we change our minds... But; all human progress involves a change of forms... WE cannot change what we are, and what our basic needs are, so we can only change our reality to suit us better and this change waits on a change of forms... When people moved from caves to tents, and from tents to houses thhis involved a consecutive change of forms... As our understanding of the form of our dwelling grew, we could use it to change, actually recreate our reality in a sense... The cave was effective shelter, and understanding its advantages led us to recreate this form in nature in an unnatural setting...Concepts and objects are identitcal...The form and theobject share a common identity... We call the dog a dog, and the form is identified by the same name...

How are these details perceived? Do you suppose that all details are equal? Could there be a difference between subjective details and objective details?

Quote:
For instance, subjective details are dependent upon an observer authoring a description. Your description may say "small, furry, cute". Mine might say, "miniature, harry, charming". Which one of our observational descriptions IS the dog?
None of our descriptions is the dog and each describes a certain dog...

Quote:

Objective details are not described, they are read. The only thing we can read of a dog is its DNA. Two biologists will read the exact same code from the DNA of a dog. That code is objective, and a cloning facility or forensics will confirm the two or more biologists findings. They will all read the exact same information. They are not "describing" an observation... They are "reading" a code.
....................

There are many objective details to a dog, and some common details to all dogs and these are what forms are...

@Faun147,

Metaphorical utterance requires interpretation. I say again, aware of the limits of language, that man is philosophy.

I view philosophy as a strange brew of science, myth, and art. Incidentally, I associate all three of these with the grandeur of man, and I view man, with all his faults, as an heroic being.

So if one wanted to define man according to his virtues, including his capacity for cultural evolution, one could do worse than "man is philosophy." Hegel implied that God was philosophy, so the thought is not so original.

But all of this is on the literary end of the philosophical spectrum, which for me is the business end, the (pro)creative end.

Respectfully...

@Fido,

Fido;106214 wrote:

...and these are what forms are...

An immense pleasure reading your comments. Truly a gift.

How may I address them efficiently in the manner you present them? I go to quote, yet all I have available is a few lines to reference.

Shall I... cut/paste from MSWord and do it the hard way? New here so perhaps I don't understand the formatting.

I find we are more unified than previously thought.

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106206 wrote:

I believe it can be resolved. Does your philosophy that "man is idea" promote that that is all that man is? What of the flesh, blood and bone? (careful, I might be tricking you :rolleyes:) And without using your synonym of "man", can you further explain what you consider an "idea" to be and how they are created? How can we know that an "idea" even exists?

I somehow feel at once both closer to you now and further away. I can only presume you have intentionally, as if by magic, produced this effect. Or perhaps it is owing to the nature of the conversation we are having.

You have attributed to me something of a philosophy that I do not profess - the idea that man is idea. But you did so magnificently.

You should know that things arising in conversation with others are not always a final statement. I have given no final statement concerning the idea of man, only made gropings in that direction.

You have asked me many questions. The most important of these seem to be the final ones: what is an idea, how is one created, and how do we know one exists?

The theme of this thread is why philosophize. One answer to this question, a partial answer, is because one wishes to find ideas. How does one find ideas? This requires the aid of one's fellow man, for dialogue reveals ideas. We know ideas exist because they emerge in conversation.

What does it mean to emerge? Dialogue washes about the idea as does the ocean about a rock. The idea is the fixed point of the conversation. If there is more than one idea, then there are many fixed points.

Philosophy marvels at these rocks in the sea, but it does more than marvel. It ascends them both in order to know them but also in order to take in the view thus afforded.

But do the ideas break down with time as the waves crash into them? Well, which lasts longer, the sea or the rock?

I do not pretend to have given a definitive answer to your questions. But perhaps something can be made of what has been said. I trust you will try.

@PappasNick,

Sorry for the poke. I feel as though life is a ride and sometimes a little jab at the one next to me wakes them up. Imagine my surprise to discover I was the one sleeping.

PappasNick;106239 wrote:

We know ideas exist because they emerge in conversation.

What does it mean to emerge? Dialogue...

Yes, go with that... the conversation and emergent dialog. How is this possible and how does this prove the existence of ideas?

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 10:54 PM ----------

Reconstructo;106224 wrote:

Metaphorical utterance requires interpretation.

Indeed. A wolf of information entropy hiding in the sheepskin of flowered words... metaphorically speaking of course.

@QuinticNon,

I like that. A wolf of information entropy. Except the wolf isn't hiding but usually simply ignored.
Anatole France did a brilliant reduction of metaphysics to its root metaphors. Derrida quotes it in The White Mythology. I think it qualifies Anatole France as an exciting meta-philosopher. He calls it the "white" mythology because it pretends to be something higher than mythology. It defines itself, for the most part, in contrast to mythology, denying its origins.

2 more cents.:shifty:

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106230 wrote:

An immense pleasure reading your comments. Truly a gift.

How may I address them efficiently in the manner you present them? I go to quote, yet all I have available is a few lines to reference.

Shall I... cut/paste from MSWord and do it the hard way? New here so perhaps I don't understand the formatting.

I find we are more unified than previously thought.

I am not sure that I understand the question, and I definetly do not know computers... I am just an old unedgified fart sitting on a pile of books in a basement...

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;106243 wrote:

Yes, go with that... the conversation and emergent dialog. How is this possible and how does this prove the existence of ideas?

I am almost ashamed of what I am about to put forward. I heard this from a friend of mine a long time ago. He said that a person's belief in an idea is what proves the idea exists, even if it is a seemingly wrong-headed idea or belief. He said that this is so even if only one person believes in the idea.

But he stressed that mere profession of belief is not enough. One must act on belief, however slightly, in order to prove there is an idea.

I told him I didn't know about this, that it sounded awfully subjective. He asked me if I thought ideas were somehow universals with an independent existence, independent from those who believe in them. I told him that was the safe, traditional view. He just smiled.

So he left me with the impression that ideas are somehow higher in rank than belief, because ideas require action in order to be known to exist while belief does not.

But I don't know about that now. I don't see why we can't say that belief requires action, too - or rather, that believing is an action in and of itself. But then, when thinking about beliefs, I must ask whether it is possible to believe in anything other than ideas. If one does not believe in an idea, what does one believe in? What is belief without action?

And as for belief and conversation, how do we know when in dialogue with someone that he believes? It seems there are two ways - he outright tells us so and gives us no reason to doubt what he says, or we determine it by a sort of process of elimination.

But this latter is problematic, for how do we know what to eliminate? Do we, as philosophers, carry around with us a catalog of beliefs, or ideas for that matter - a sort of checklist? If so, how can we be sure to be open enough to take in something new, to not be blinded by our own science?

So I am afraid I have left us with more questions than answers, and that I may not have been very helpful. But this seems to be what happens when one ventures out into these sometimes chilly waters.

@Faun147,

Philosophy is good. What is good? For that we require philosophy.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113476 wrote:

Philosophy is good. What is good? For that we require philosophy.

An obvious answer (although it need not be the only one) is that it is good for dealing with philosophical problems.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113511 wrote:

An obvious answer (although it need not be the only one) is that it is good for dealing with philosophical problems.

I agree. That's a good answer, but "philosophical" problems are determined by one's conception of philosophy.

"Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113585 wrote:

I agree. That's a good answer, but "philosophical" problems are determined by one's conception of philosophy.

Why the "but"? But there are traditional philosophical problems that are not determined by any individual's conception of philosophy. They are the problems which have been discussed by philosophers like Plato, and Descartes, and Hume, and Bertrand Russell, and Quine.

@Faun147,

OK, but look at your personal selection there. Where are the Germans? Always a certain amount of preference involved. Same with history. Which events are important? Which left out? It's hard to escape one's values in this regard. Also you probably hate Derrida. Well, he isn't my favorite but he has his moments. We have had enough conversations that I'm pretty sure you would exclude some of my favorites philosophers from your conception of philosophy. What then?

@Faun147,

Faun147;38348 wrote:

Why is a philosopher a philosopher? It seems to defy practicality. Of course, practicality is not the only issue. What about matters of memory? Can wisdom be forgotten? If so, did we waste our time with philosophy?

This I consider wise questions, which critically and contructive look upon reality of concepts.

Why is a philosopher a philosopher? Because he is curious, because he wants answers to certain principles.

It seems to defy practicality. Indeed, philosophy often falls victim to naivity, navel gazing, demagogues ..etc. It requires a good amount of praticallity to escape the pitfalls.

What about matters of memory? Can wisdom be forgotten? Yes, human's memory are short, generation gaps often occurs, for good and bad. Stockmarkets breaks down because we'r utterly optimistic and greedy ..thereby forgetting the wisdom of old. I worked for a CEO who threw away 3.2 billion kr. he had preached put aside for days of suffering, yet he forgot it in his greed, and now have a debt of 200 million kr.

We eat junkfood because it's faster, easier and often more tastey, than what granny made of healthier stuff.

If so, did we waste our time with philosophy? Curiosity killed the cat, our primal instinct drive us for search of things, the drive for making things better. Caveman probaly went from throwin rocks at big animals, to throw spears, then bow and arrows.

Philosophy may act as a tool to refine things, to invent things, to help us understand what's going on, how things work.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;133050 wrote:

This I consider wise questions, which critically and contructive look upon reality of concepts.

Why is a philosopher a philosopher? Because he is curious, because he wants answers to certain principles.

It seems to defy practicality. Indeed, philosophy often falls victim to naivity, navel gazing, demagogues ..etc. It requires a good amount of praticallity to escape the pitfalls.

What about matters of memory? Can wisdom be forgotten? Yes, human's memory are short, generation gaps often occurs, for good and bad. Stockmarkets breaks down because we'r utterly optimistic and greedy ..thereby forgetting the wisdom of old. I worked for a CEO who threw away 3.2 billion kr. he had preached put aside for days of suffering, yet he forgot it in his greed, and now have a debt of 200 million kr.

We eat junkfood because it's faster, easier and often more tastey, than what granny made of healthier stuff.

If so, did we waste our time with philosophy? Curiosity killed the cat, our primal instinct drive us for search of things, the drive for making things better. Caveman probaly went from throwin rocks at big animals, to throw spears, then bow and arrows.

Philosophy may act as a tool to refine things, to invent things, to help us understand what's going on, how things work.

I must disagree on the matter of human's memories being short... Are you talking of humanity then clearly culture as our resevor of knowledge is very durable...Humanity forgets everytime people die before their time, and when the knowledge people once felt confident of loses its meaning and is discarded... Other than that, once writing was developed very little was forgotten...War has been the great destroyer of knowledge in days past...As it erased those who had the knowledge, so it it destroyed the value of that knowledge to those who remained...

Philosophy Forum

Why Philosophize?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know