Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Jklint
Posts: 1199
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Jklint » January 2nd, 2018, 7:29 pm

Human relations to the vertical dimensions of experience have always been haphazard, naive and clueless, as one might expect from a newly intelligent species without precedent from which to draw.
...not to mention that its in the "vertical dimensions of experience" where the human brain is most likely to get deoxygenated.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6684
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Greta » January 2nd, 2018, 7:41 pm

Jklint wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 7:29 pm
Human relations to the vertical dimensions of experience have always been haphazard, naive and clueless, as one might expect from a newly intelligent species without precedent from which to draw.
...not to mention that its in the "vertical dimensions of experience" where the human brain is most likely to get deoxygenated.
:lol: ... and when one flies too high in the festive season.

Jklint
Posts: 1199
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Jklint » January 2nd, 2018, 8:07 pm

Greta wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 7:41 pm
Jklint wrote:
January 2nd, 2018, 7:29 pm


...not to mention that its in the "vertical dimensions of experience" where the human brain is most likely to get deoxygenated.
:lol: ... and when one flies too high in the festive season.
Yes! Regarding that we have yet to discover how cannabis reacts with booze. Will it be annihilation or revelation? It's time for all true philosophers to start experimenting!

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Hereandnow » January 3rd, 2018, 4:45 pm

Greta:
Does this mean that reality is more fundamentally informational than energetic?
Well, to use those terms, I will ask the question, what is real? You could sya that the "energetic" is real and mean by this the palpable, the raw feels of experience, like being stabbed in kidney or being in love, and certainly the act of saying of a thing has its own weight and validity, for it carries conviction; it is socially effective, wins, potentially, friends and influences people; has a raw feel of its own, that of knowing, anticipating the next word, the next idea, this stream of consciuosness is the raw feel itself (perhaps what drove Virginia Woolf, a stream of conscious writer, to commit suicide). I think looking at it like this is the getting at the bedrock of all that really is. When information is made into an abstraction it is taken as being apart from the "energetic" but this too is not an abstraction, is it? In that logic too is palpable in exactly the same way just decribed: Logic never occurs in a vacuum. It occurs in the matrix of human thought and feeling. Information is never really outside of the dynamic stream, is it? How can it be?
And this is why I say science is an abstraction, for to understand something is always for some purpose, and its exclusivity, the narrow range of its concern, is taken as something to address that concern. Hence, biology or physics. But the raw data is not exclusive at all, it is merely taken as exclusive. It is purely and holistically energetic. The parallax method of measuring star distance is, in its reality, a collection of thinking and feeling in actual streams of consciousness that are bound to address a selected area of interest. Apart from this, there is no method. And all reality is reducible to this (keeping in mind that the "this" in question is also part of this originary stream).
The long sweep of history, including pre-history, is certainly linear and rational
That I do not understand. There is nothing rational about history save the rational agencies that populate it. And when they act out rationally, the reason stays in the egoic foundation.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6684
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Greta » January 3rd, 2018, 6:17 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
January 3rd, 2018, 4:45 pm
Greta:
Does this mean that reality is more fundamentally informational than energetic?
Well, to use those terms, I will ask the question, what is real? You could sya that the "energetic" is real and mean by this the palpable, the raw feels of experience, like being stabbed in kidney or being in love, and certainly the act of saying of a thing has its own weight and validity, for it carries conviction; it is socially effective, wins, potentially, friends and influences people; has a raw feel of its own, that of knowing, anticipating the next word, the next idea, this stream of consciuosness is the raw feel itself (perhaps what drove Virginia Woolf, a stream of conscious writer, to commit suicide). I think looking at it like this is the getting at the bedrock of all that really is. When information is made into an abstraction it is taken as being apart from the "energetic" but this too is not an abstraction, is it? In that logic too is palpable in exactly the same way just decribed: Logic never occurs in a vacuum. It occurs in the matrix of human thought and feeling. Information is never really outside of the dynamic stream, is it? How can it be?

And this is why I say science is an abstraction, for to understand something is always for some purpose, and its exclusivity, the narrow range of its concern, is taken as something to address that concern.
Information and energy can be separated in degrees, if not absolutely. For instance, what is the difference between your living body and your dead body ten minutes later? The latter is less information-dense. Consider the physical difference between an empty hard drive and a full one - very subtle - and then consider the difference in terms of impact on physical reality. Information is no abstraction. We are the most information-dense things that we know of, and also the most sentient. You can be sure that any entities that are more aware than us will be more complex still.

Hereandnow wrote:
The long sweep of history, including pre-history, is certainly linear and rational
That I do not understand. There is nothing rational about history save the rational agencies that populate it. And when they act out rationally, the reason stays in the egoic foundation.
There is obvious order and progression on Earth. Four billion years ago, the Earth was geologically alive but without biological life. Since then there's been a persistent, if inconsistent, trend towards complexity and sentience; relatively linear and rational. Just as the Earth's heating through climate change is linear and ordered enough to be broadly predictable, the weather remains variable, but this does not diminish the broader trends that are clear.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Hereandnow » January 7th, 2018, 12:59 am

Greta:
There is obvious order and progression on Earth. Four billion years ago, the Earth was geologically alive but without biological life. Since then there's been a persistent, if inconsistent, trend towards complexity and sentience; relatively linear and rational. Just as the Earth's heating through climate change is linear and ordered enough to be broadly predictable, the weather remains variable, but this does not diminish the broader trends that are clear.
There are those who believe that the regularities you identify are not actually something discovered by observers, but rather, are made by the observational event in which the scientific observer brings systematic thinking to bare upon, or better, to construct data out of thinking itself. Science is not about order discovered in the world; it's about the order we impose on the world in a conceptual act. But the objection would be that humans could not, with their faculties of order and reason, systematize chaos. There has to be an independent order that is there in the world to be taken as orderly. I present this puzzler.

(But this goes beyond Foucault's point as he examines historical events in human history observes less a rational course of events and more a power play.)

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6684
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Greta » January 7th, 2018, 3:35 am

Hereandnow wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 12:59 am
Greta:
There is obvious order and progression on Earth. Four billion years ago, the Earth was geologically alive but without biological life. Since then there's been a persistent, if inconsistent, trend towards complexity and sentience; relatively linear and rational. Just as the Earth's heating through climate change is linear and ordered enough to be broadly predictable, the weather remains variable, but this does not diminish the broader trends that are clear.
There are those who believe that the regularities you identify are not actually something discovered by observers, but rather, are made by the observational event in which the scientific observer brings systematic thinking to bare upon, or better, to construct data out of thinking itself. Science is not about order discovered in the world; it's about the order we impose on the world in a conceptual act. But the objection would be that humans could not, with their faculties of order and reason, systematize chaos. There has to be an independent order that is there in the world to be taken as orderly. I present this puzzler.

(But this goes beyond Foucault's point as he examines historical events in human history observes less a rational course of events and more a power play.)
While human minds do impose order on relative chaos, they are not imposing that order on a blank slate, on total chaos. Rather, there are clearly numerous orderly systems of which the human mind is simply the most complex system we know about, and we do not observe these as equally orderly.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Namelesss » January 8th, 2018, 3:28 am

Hereandnow wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 12:59 am
There has to be an independent order that is there in the world to be taken as orderly. I present this puzzler.
Are you saying that for us to perceive (a) 'green' ('object') there must be an 'inherently green ('objective') object 'out there'? *__-
The only 'green' that you perceive exists in the particular feature of Mind that you are solely perceiving at this very moment.
Every moment and every Perspective is unique.
The 'inherent order' that you suggest, that puzzle, seems resolved in the tollowing illustration;

'Point to the left'.
Easy.
Note where you are pointing.
Now turn 1 degree and point to the left.
Again note the results.
Now another degree, etc...
And another 1/4 of a degree...
Turn in every possible direction, on every possible axis!
It turns out that every direction is 'left', 'left' is a 'cloud needing a particular Perspective to have any 'direction' at all!
Now point to the 'right'!
Same drill!
Note that the exact same cloud of 'left', is also, at the same moment, a cloud of 'right'!
And a cloud of 'up'!
And a cloud of 'down'...
Do the experiment!

The only 'distinctions' that can even be called 'left' or 'right', OR 'up' and 'down'... are a matter of (the only 'difference' is) Perspective!

Ultimately, We are One (unchanging (motionless), all inclusive) 'Cloud'/Reality!!
The only way that anything can be perceived is by our unique ignorance of everything else in the 'Cloud'; step away from a tapestry and we perceive the larger picture, in it's entirety.
Step from 'our Perspective' (midway from all Perspectives, the 'Middle Way') and all such distinctions vanish!
Once all Perspectives perceive the unique bit before Us, like matter and antimatter, all ends, the very moment it arose; all existence but a moment of Universal Enlightenment/Self Knowledge!
I suggest that 'order', like 'beauty' and all 'meaning' exists in the eye/thoughts/ego of the beholder.
If such order exists in the mind of the beholder, then it exists. That is the location of the 'inherency'. *__-

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Hereandnow » January 8th, 2018, 3:03 pm

Nameless:
Are you saying that for us to perceive (a) 'green' ('object') there must be an 'inherently green ('objective') object 'out there'? *__
You should have stopped there.

You defend what is called idealism, and the manner of your thought is that of George Berkeley. This business has a very long history and is to this day a central theme in philosophy, though it is not recognized as idealism. Today, I guess idealists are postmodernists. Postmodern thinking takes the whole matter you speak of and puts focus on language and grammar (semiotics). It is not so much whether the color of green exists in an world independent of perceptual systems, systems like the one we have. This is something any first year medical student knows. And in philosophy the issue was originally presented in terms of secondary and primary qualities; you know, sensory impressions belonging to secondary qualities and space and time belonging to primary ones.

This does not get interesting until Kant, frankly. His Critique of Pure Reason is an astounding read. Worthy of every second spent. It could be that you are intuitively aligned to idealism (which brings me to your question: idealsim does not mean there is nothing beyond the limits of human understanding; it just means, by a certain phenomenological perspective, that what lies outside of the embrace of human knowledge is simply without words, ineffable, and as such cannot be mentioned without a host of problems arising. I was mentioning to Greta that one could say it does look like, even though the mind structures the world of sensory impressions, it should be that the "something" that is being organized, possesses some inherent organization itself. Take the consistency of gravity. I observe things falling, but any given event is entirely "taken up" and formed in the mind, not out there. There is, as Rorty put it, no language, there are no sentences that are true "out there." Truth is, if you will, our contribution. BUT: it does seem fair to say that something that corresponds as a counterpart "out there" may be required for our conception of consistence and its application "in here." Hard to talk about such things at all, really. Wittgenstein says it nonsense. He is both right and wrong,I think.
step away from a tapestry and we perceive the larger picture, in it's entirety.
You see, I agree with this, in a way. But then, what is it you are really saying? What do you see? Are you intuitively aware of something that binds all things into a whole? Wittgenstein once wrote that a depressed man lives in a depressed world. A mood does this: fills and unites a person's world. Perhaps yours is not so much a mood as an intuition in that in the withdrawal from particulars in, say, meditation (read Wordsworth's "Intimations of Immortality"and his "Tintern Abbey" a of Emerson in his little book "nature"; and Transcendentalism, the 19th century movement. History is filled with mystics) one observes in one's own conscious awareness an expansion (check out Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk).

I am a devotee of the moon and the stars. But to talk about such things is not easy. A romanticized new ageism doesn't work. Rudolf Otto, Kierkegaard, et al: there are those that give extraordinary clarity to what approaches and surrounds the ineffable. Starts with Kant.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Namelesss » January 8th, 2018, 10:19 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 3:03 pm
Nameless:
Are you saying that for us to perceive (a) 'green' ('object') there must be an 'inherently green ('objective') object 'out there'? *__^
You defend what is called idealism, and the manner of your thought is that of George Berkeley.

Yes, there are some similarities, and some differences. As Berkeley was capable of thinking for himself, so am I.
This business has a very long history and is to this day a central theme in philosophy, though it is not recognized as idealism. Today, I guess idealists are postmodernists. Postmodern thinking takes the whole matter you speak of and puts focus on language and grammar (semiotics). It is not so much whether the color of green exists in an world independent of perceptual systems, systems like the one we have. This is something any first year medical student knows. And in philosophy the issue was originally presented in terms of secondary and primary qualities; you know, sensory impressions belonging to secondary qualities and space and time belonging to primary ones.
I am not going to answer for anyone but myself.
Putting people/thoughts into easily dismissible categories is not philosophy.
Any first year physics student knows that the only thing 'out there' is Mind/information waves, quantum probability wave field, undifferentiated potential! There is no 'thing' 'out there' to be green. We perceive the code for apple, we pwerceive the code for red, we perceive the code for cold, crisp, sweet... etc... and there's the 'apple out there'!
This does not get interesting until Kant, frankly. His Critique of Pure Reason is an astounding read. Worthy of every second spent. It could be that you are intuitively aligned to idealism (which brings me to your question: idealsim does not mean there is nothing beyond the limits of human understanding;

I'm sorry, but I do not adhere to any 'isms', nor can the sum of my offerings fit into any convenient prepackaged -ism!
it just means, by a certain phenomenological perspective, that what lies outside of the embrace of human knowledge is simply without words, ineffable, and as such cannot be mentioned without a host of problems arising.
Knowledge = experience.
All that exists is Known/experienced.
Whether the One Universal Consciousness is peeking from your or my or a fish's eyes, all is Known!
What cannot be spoken is that which transcends the conditional schizophrenic duality of 'thought/ego'!
We can experience/Know the unconditional, the transcendental, but it cannot be corralled by dualistic language.
But it can/is certainly Known!
I was mentioning to Greta that one could say it does look like, even though the mind structures the world of sensory impressions, it should be that the "something" that is being organized, possesses some inherent organization itself.
One could say that "the "something" that is being organized, possesses some inherent organization itself", but from a scientific/philosophical Perspective, that would be an error. A non-sequitur.
Take the consistency of gravity. I observe things falling, but any given event is entirely "taken up" and formed in the mind, not out there. There is, as Rorty put it, no language, there are no sentences that are true "out there." Truth is, if you will, our contribution. BUT: it does seem fair to say that something that corresponds as a counterpart "out there" may be required for our conception of consistence and its application "in here." Hard to talk about such things at all, really. Wittgenstein says it nonsense. He is both right and wrong,I think.
When the common dividing line between 'in here' and 'out there' consists of the inside of people's eyelids, I find it hard to take the entire concept seriously. What an arbitrary mess!
"step away from a tapestry and we perceive the larger picture, in it's entirety."

You see, I agree with this, in a way. But then, what is it you are really saying? What do you see?
I am saying that;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

Like matter and antimatter merging and self annihilating, so does the Universe as all opposite Perspectives are Known to Consciousness!' When the 'whole picture' is perceived, it self-annihilates, end of existence! Whereas a tapestry merely presents itself in more 'context', Reality/Universe/Consciousness... has no context!
Are you intuitively aware of something that binds all things into a whole?

Once I was intuitively aware of the Oneness of all, then I heard about it from science (physics), now I Am experientially aware, now I Know.
Wittgenstein once wrote that a depressed man lives in a depressed world. A mood does this: fills and unites a person's world.

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a funhouse mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon
Angry people find angry people everywhere. When the anger is dealt with, all those disturbing angry people seem to vanish!
The world is our mirror.
When the feeling/thought of sadness is there to perceive, that is what we perceive.
No other 'why' than that.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2095
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Burning ghost » January 9th, 2018, 2:23 am

hereandnow -

Most of what Foucault writes is pure fiction. His appeal to the ignorant is rather high because he hides behind words by saying words have no meaning. He rewrites history according to his own opinions. He is neither a scholar nor a philosopher, he is more of an agony aunt answering his own concerns with kind of self-authority he so readily chooses to oppose (the irony of his work was likely purposeful; but sadly the ignorant take it at face value and feel that interpreting it however they wish - so as to fit their own personal agenda - is exactly what Foucault was begging them to do.

Basically, he has an interesting and imaginative idea, then goes about producing an appearance of evidence and comparing what he does to empirical science as if it is equivalent. The masses buy into this because it saves then the bother of having to learn what mathematics is all about and what scientific method has done to progress human society to the point it's reached today. The politics of science is non-existent. Scientists are political, but science itself is no more political than a mountain.
AKA badgerjelly

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Namelesss » January 9th, 2018, 7:02 am

Burning ghost wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 2:23 am
The masses buy into this because it saves then the bother of having to learn what mathematics is all about and what scientific method has done to progress human society to the point...
... of self annihilation...
... it's reached today
*__-

Burning ghost
Posts: 2095
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Burning ghost » January 9th, 2018, 11:00 am

Case closed! Gotcha! Know you're a danger to yourself and others now.

Thanks for revealing your deformed approximation of morality.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Hereandnow » January 9th, 2018, 1:15 pm

Burning Ghost
Most of what Foucault writes is pure fiction. His appeal to the ignorant is rather high because he hides behind words by saying words have no meaning. He rewrites history according to his own opinions. He is neither a scholar nor a philosopher, he is more of an agony aunt answering his own concerns with kind of self-authority he so readily chooses to oppose (the irony of his work was likely purposeful; but sadly the ignorant take it at face value and feel that interpreting it however they wish - so as to fit their own personal agenda - is exactly what Foucault was begging them to do.

Basically, he has an interesting and imaginative idea, then goes about producing an appearance of evidence and comparing what he does to empirical science as if it is equivalent. The masses buy into this because it saves then the bother of having to learn what mathematics is all about and what scientific method has done to progress human society to the point it's reached today. The politics of science is non-existent. Scientists are political, but science itself is no more political than a mountain.
I fyou think the politics of science is non existent you have a LOT of thinking to do. It's not about the scientific method. Is that what you think Foucault is about? Some sort of existential revolt against the laws of reason? No: it is the direction of science: what gets funded, what ideas dominate a culture's interests and concerns such that paradigms of science are pursued in the fist place, how systems of thought yield further elaborations that are taken up by authorities and turned into propaganda, how propoganda translates into societal demands, how pathologies are defined the needs of society (here we are talking about the interpretations of pathologies, not descriptions of symptoms.); and it goes on and on.

You have to read more closely and allow his points to be clear.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2095
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post by Burning ghost » January 9th, 2018, 1:31 pm

You'd rather focus on what pushes your agenda rather than what I actually said.

Look again ... I said "The politics of science is non-existent." By this I made my meaning CRYSTAL CLEAR in the next sentence by saying, "Scientists are political, but science itself is no more political than a mountain."

You then conflate "reason" with "science," and then talk about the "direction of science." Basically you proved my point and proved you've been duped by hermeneutical word play and the post modernist belief that everything can be interpreted in any way; which is immensely convenient if you cannot being bothered to use reason or do any serious research that can be verified by scientific investigation. Better to dismiss science as a tool of some political agenda rather than take on the task of actually learning how to do any kind of disciplined analysis and objective measurement.

If you want to make a thread about this I'd be more than happy to expose your views to the hard light of day. Go for it, PLEASE!
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply