Where do you begin?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;158941 wrote:

But you can see we are looking at the subject from a different perspective. Yours is philosophy qua philosophy - philosophy as a subject. Mine is a quest for a particular quality or goal. It touches on some aspects of philosophy. It is not as if I believe that metaphysics or epistemology is not philosophy, but it only interests me insofar as it assists with understanding what is good. I would say, metaphysics has as its goal the understanding of what is good in everything - that is, I believe, perfectly orthodox platonism. Epistemology likewise - how do we know what is really good?

But a lot of academic and technical philosophy could not give a tinkers cuss for what I consider to be good. I suppose there are some moderns who do. I seek them out, and read them. (Never enough time for the reading I would like to do.) But as for a lot of what goes on in philosophy departments, it doesn't interest me, not because I think it is not philosophy, but it is not the philosophy that interests me.

Can all philosophy be defined, not as a search for goodness, but as a search for sanity?

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;158943 wrote:

You have the wrong discipline, buddy. Analytic philosophy is more like a chess game.

More than what? ................

---------- Post added 05-01-2010 at 11:37 AM ----------

Twirlip;158944 wrote:

Can all philosophy be defined, not as a search for goodness, but as a search for sanity?

Isn't that the definition of going to see a psychiatrist? Philosophers are not psychiatrists, although both terms do start with the same letter. And the same goes for pharmacology if you have in mind medication.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;158967 wrote:

Twirlip;158944 wrote:
Can all philosophy be defined, not as a search for goodness, but as a search for sanity?

Isn't that the definition of going to see a psychiatrist?

Is soundness of mind a medical concept, a philosophical concept, or some other sort of concept? Is it unambiguous? Is it known to us all, or only to certain specialists, in whose authority we must (or should) trust? Is it, indeed, a clear and trustworthy concept at all? If so, is it primitive, irreducible, or can it be defined in terms of other concepts?

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;158944 wrote:

Can all philosophy be defined, not as a search for goodness, but as a search for sanity?

'Philosophy' means 'the love of wisdom' or better still 'love-wisdom' or even 'wisdom-compassion'. But that is more a Buddhist definition. (That definition is rather old-fashioned, of course. The definition most of analytics prefer is knowledge of the subject of philosophy, and knowing how to debate it. And that is fair enough. But I prefer yours!)

Consider the following idea. We are all familiar with the Standard Distribution, a.k.a. the Bell Curve. Imagine that 'degrees of sanity' are distributed along it. Starting at the left, you have those unfortunate persons with mental illness - schizophrenia and the like. (This is not derogatory, by the way.) A salient characteristics of mental illness is lack of insight. It becomes so acute in the mentally ill that various aspects of their personality appear to them as voices, forces, or other persons. They have little or no self-knowledge, or insight into their own condition. (I don't know if it has been said by anyone, but I believe that insight is the opposite of insanity.)

Then moving right, you find the middle of the bell curve, which is normality - most of us. We have a degree of insight, and can work and love (which was Freud's definition of sanity.) This too covers a range - barely integrated sociopaths at one end, to highly integrated and sane individuals at the other, but all within the range of normality.

I propose that on the far right of the bell curve, and accordingly few in number, you have individuals who are above normal, or super-normal. They are superbly integrated individuals who possess great insight, great integration, and so on. They are, in a sense, supremely sane individuals. This I would characterize as wisdom, but it might manifest as some other great talent or genius. (I suppose there are also the notoriously 'temperamental geniuses' who are on the border of creativity and madness - Nietzsche comes to mind - but that is not what I have in mind.)

This is similar to Abraham Maslow's idea of the hierarchy of needs. This starts with basic needs, food and shelter, up through social needs, and so on. At the high end of the hierarchy is what he calls the realm of self-actualization and the peak experience.

Quote:

Peak experiences are described by Maslow as especially joyous and exciting moments in life, involving sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, wonder and awe, and possibly also involving an awareness of transcendental unity or knowledge of higher truth (as though perceiving the world from an altered, and often vastly profound and awe-inspiring perspective). They usually come on suddenly and are often inspired by deep meditation, intense feelings of love, exposure to great art or music, or the overwhelming beauty of nature.

(from Wikipedia).

So I guess here I am putting the perspective of the 'human potential' movement. But I think it is a good perspective, because it gives you some way to calibrate your state of being, as it were, and something to aspire to. And as it is a curve, or a continuum, one can move along it, rather than try and hit a particular ideal or target.

@Twirlip,

In this connection, I recall one of Plato's lesser-known early dialogues, the Wacko, in which Socrates is conversing with Diagnoses, a physician:

Quote:

But, friend Diagnoses, if that which is insane is the same with that which is treated by the doctors, and is treated because it is insane, then that which is treated by doctors would have been treated as being treated by doctors; but if that which is treated by doctors is treated by them because treated by them, then that which is insane would have been insane because treated by them. But now you see that the reverse is the case, and that they are quite different from one another. For one is of a kind to be treated because it is treated, and the other is treated because it is of a kind to be treated. Thus you appear to me, Diagnoses, when I ask you what is the essence of insanity, to offer an attribute only, and not the essence - the attribute of being treated by all the doctors. But you still refuse to explain to me the nature of insanity. And therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what insanity really is, whether treated by the doctors or not (for that is a matter about which we will not quarrel) and what is sanity?

(You may recall the sad ending of that dialogue, in which Socrates is coerced into drinking some medicine which violently disagrees with him.)

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner;158929 wrote:

It depends what you mean by "successful." If you mean perfect, no. No human endeavor is ever perfect. I consider my own philosophy successful in that I am satisfied with the way it explains some very difficult questions ... but not everyone (if anyone) would find what I say convincing. So, I haven't tried to write it down. Further, it's not as if I've built something unique. Rather, it is an addition to existing constructs.

I find it hard to conceive of. I guess I've never thought about trying to tie everything together. Intuitively it seems like each difficult question would have it's own answer, and that there wouldn't necessarily be a philosophy that answered multiple difficult questions.

Quote:

I remember something I read about conversations between Hawking and another physicist on whether the universe has a beginning. I think it was Hawking who was using the circle as an analogy to explain that the universe has no beginning. His rival pointed out that if he were to write that down, he would have to start drawing the circle somewhere. It's an interesting conumdrum.

Yes, although in terms of cosmology I don't think the rivals answer is particularly good, there is a similar dilemma in philosophy. In that if you try and build a logical system, you have to have a premise somewhere that is an assertion. That isn't a terrible problem though, because almost everyone is going to reject certain premises and accept others. We all share our humanity.

Quote:

Anyway, it sounds as if you begin with experience. Is that an "inward" thing that would contrast with what I concluded from kennethamy, i.e. "science" as an external thing? Or is it an interactive thing?

Psychology is a science, so I don't get the distinction being made. I certainly don't try and figure things out by introspection. I think you learn more about yourself from taking the outside view really.

Really what I was saying is that I don't deliberately choose a starting point. But since I am generally "coming from" somewhere when I start to think about a question, that could be called my beginning.

*************

@jeeprs: You are saying, I think, that the philosophical question "what is the good life, and how do we live it" is more important than all other questions? I agree, but that's a bit tricky in my opinion. The most important think about food is that it prevents us from starving to death, no one would deny that, but generally we are concerned with many other things.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;158992 wrote:

'Philosophy' means 'the love of wisdom' or better still 'love-wisdom' or even 'wisdom-compassion'.

That is what it used to mean in ancient Greek. But it doesn't follow that is what "philosophy" means now, does it? It is to commit the etymological fallacy to infer that because a word used to mean Y, that it means Y now. As you know, the meanings of words constantly change as time goes on.

---------- Post added 05-01-2010 at 02:36 PM ----------

Jebediah;158998 wrote:

I find it hard to conceive of. I guess I've never thought about trying to tie everything together. Intuitively it seems like each difficult question would have it's own answer, and that there wouldn't necessarily be a philosophy that answered multiple difficult questions.

Yes, the assumption that somehow everything goes together, and therefore, can be tied together (whatever that means) is just a speculation, and, like all speculations, are devoid of evidence. That is what "speculation" means. What makes anyone think that the world is a kind of jigsaw puzzle, and there is a big picture into which all the pieces fit, I have no idea. All the evidence seems to be to the contrary.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;159041 wrote:

That is what it used to mean in ancient Greek. But it doesn't follow that is what "philosophy" means now, does it? It is to commit the etymological fallacy to infer that because a word used to mean Y, that it means Y now. As you know, the meanings of words constantly change as time goes on.

To relate the meaning of a root word to the meaning of the more modern form helps us to abstract the whole concept of the words purpose for which we can use it. If we were to change to much of abstracted purpose of the word then you would have a completely new word and etymology wouldn't exist.

@lazymon,

lazymon;159133 wrote:

To relate the meaning of a root word to the meaning of the more modern form helps us to abstract the whole concept of the words purpose for which we can use it. If we were to change to much of abstracted purpose of the word then you would have a completely new word and etymology wouldn't exist.

Sorry. I have no idea what you are saying.

@Resha Caner,

Amy, what you gonna do........

@kennethamy,

I was trying to say that if you think abstractly about the etymological differences of a words' modern and archaic form they really mean the same thing?

So I was asking why would it be an "etymological fallacy to infer that because a word used to mean Y, that it means Y now."?

But now that I think about it I feel very stupid since if you take the word sex for example its origin was meant to divide. So I would have to be pretty high to derive sex from divide(or section).

Sorry Wink

@lazymon,

lazymon;159165 wrote:

So I was asking why would it be an "etymological fallacy to infer that because a word used to mean Y, that it means Y now."?

Sorry

Because, an argument is fallacious when its conclusion does not follow from its premises. And the argument that because a word used to mean X, that it still means X, is clearly fallacious. It does not follow. For instance, the word "lunatic" used to mean, a person who was influence by the Moon to do crazy thing. It no longer means that. So, it would be a fallacy to argue that because "lunatic"used to mean, influenced by the Moon, that it still means, influenced by the Moon. Similarly, it would be fallacious to argue that because "philosophy" used to mean, "love of wisdom", that it still means, love of wisdom.

@Resha Caner,

Unless, of course, you concentrate on ancient philosophy and the existing remnants within philosophy that still uphold the original meaning.

And while we're at it, if it is not the love of wisdom, and the meaning has changed, what is it now? Bet you can't give another definition as succinct.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;159176 wrote:

Unless, of course, you concentrate on ancient philosophy and the existing remnants within philosophy that still uphold the original meaning.

And while we're at it, if it is not the love of wisdom, and the meaning has changed, what is it now? Bet you can't give another definition as succinct.

Maybe not as succinct, but I hope more accurate. How about Gilbert Ryle's, "Talk about talk"? Hey, come to think of it, that is not only more accurate, but also, a lot more succinct. So, you lose.

Why would you think that "love of wisdom" was even an accurate representation of philosophy for the ancients?

@Resha Caner,

'Talk about talk', is it. How jejune.

[jejune: -adjective

1. without interest or significance; dull; insipid: a jejune novel.

2. juvenile; immature; childish: jejune behavior.

3. lacking knowledge or experience; uninformed: jejune attempts to design a house.

4. deficient or lacking in nutritive value: a jejune diet.]

I modified this comment because I wrote it in the wrong frame of mind. I have left the remainder because it was already quoted.

Note to self: refrain from entering text when feeling annoyed.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;158760 wrote:

The cure, of course, is to get a context. As Wittgenstein puts it , "Back to the rough ground". That is where you get traction for language.

I thought of something I think applies to this.
I also think you are ,maybe, brilliant at this sort of skill.

John catches fish.
Therefore,
John does not catch fish

I don't think you can refute this.
It is clearly wrong, also clearly right.

What do you call this? Divided context?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;159198 wrote:

'Talk about talk', is it. How jejune.

[jejune: -adjective

1. without interest or significance; dull; insipid: a jejune novel.

2. juvenile; immature; childish: jejune behavior.

3. lacking knowledge or experience; uninformed: jejune attempts to design a house.

4. deficient or lacking in nutritive value: a jejune diet.]

I know another one President you probably would have admired. Ronald Reagan, of whom it was said, 'if you waded through the depths of his soul, you would emerge with dry feet.'

Note to self: must stop wasting time here.

Jejune it might be, but not as mawkish or as cliche'd as "love of wisdom". And certainly, more accurate. For that is exactly what philosophers do, talk about talk. "Love of wisdom" at best describes a noble sentiment; but talk about talk describes an activity.

Mawkish:
1 : having an insipid often unpleasant taste
2 : sickly or pueriley sentimental.

If you ask me I don't think you are, at all, wasting time here. And even you, in your more cheerful moments, have allowed that you have been learning things on this forum. And that is not a waste of time. After all, you would have to allow that the love of wisdom (whatever that may be) means thinking about one's most cherished beliefs, and not being dogmatic about them. And that is a result of your participating on this thread. Where else would you be forced to confront your dogmas?

@Resha Caner,

Apologies - I lost my temper. I shall henceforth try and refrain from sarcasm.

@jeeprs,

The word-sign 'philosophy', like many ideas, seems to be involved in a game of almost unlimited semiosis, it has the potential of attracting further associations which are necessarily linked to other associations, and so on. What should appear as some stable and fixed relation between the signifier 'philosophy' and what it actually signifies, may well turn out to be a labyrinth where the signified perpetualy mirrors and reflects other signifieds, permitting infinite variation, meaning, connotation and association. Just a thought...

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;159440 wrote:

Apologies - I lost my temper. I shall henceforth try and refrain from sarcasm.

A little gentle sarcasm is a good safety valve. I admit indulging in it myself. But, temper loss is a very different thing. And this is nothing to lose a temper over. It is supposed to be an intellectual disagreement. Anyway, no problem on this side.

---------- Post added 05-03-2010 at 08:18 AM ----------

qualia;159456 wrote:

The word-sign 'philosophy', like many ideas, seems to be involved in a game of almost unlimited semiosis, it has the potential of attracting further associations which are necessarily linked to other associations, and so on. What should appear as some stable and fixed relation between the signifier 'philosophy' and what it actually signifies, may well turn out to be a labyrinth where the signified perpetualy mirrors and reflects other signifieds, permitting infinite variation, meaning, connotation and association. Just a thought...

Personal associations people happen to have with a term (if any) are one thing. But the meaning of the term, is a very different thing. I happen not to like cats, and and the word "cat" has unpleasant associations for me. But not for cat-lovers. But what has that to do with the meaning of the word, "cat"? Nothing that I can see.

Philosophy Forum

Where do you begin?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know