Inconsistent. If 'a' then not 'b'. Can't be both.
On the other hand, imbibing the thoughts of others …
No one who is properly trained “imbibes” thoughts.
There's that vague and self-serving qualifier; 'properly'. Leaving that in there is an automatic 'support' of your argument (you get to define).
That's why I am disregarding such vaguery and dishonesty.
On the other hand, I do enjoy the irony and oxymoronic notion of 'training' someone to think for himself!
It is obvious that the majority of academic graduates have NOT been 'properly trained' (whatever you might mean), according to the evidence.
Rare is the graduate well capable for 'thinking for himself' (philosophy).
I have know some who were and some who were not.
So, again, that makes my point, to some extent.
So. I am not 'entirely wrong', even in your experience.
It was not the fault of their training that those who were not are not.
Yeah, so you say.
Yet you did say that it is because of 'proper training' that they are, and of 'improper training' (by implication) that they are not.
I disagree! 'Depth of Knowledge and understanding' naturally arise to Perspective at appropriate moments.
You cannot know the depth of knowledge of an author’s thoughts “naturally”. You must read the author in depth.
I referred to "Depth of Knowledge and understanding", you made it about some author, I was speaking in general.
There's nothing wrong in looking up recipe, at first, and them moving past it.
Moving past one recipe is moving past many (that we haven't read).
The raw materials that are needed are about all to be found in gradeschool, first few years.
The most profound philosophical thought is informed by cutting edge science.
Here you display your lack of knowledge of the tradition as well as "cutting edge science".
Yeah, so you say.
So, you are implying that it is my ignorance to say that cutting edge science is a necessary informant of philosophy? Really?
You must be a philosophy graduate.
You are taking your argument to the extreme in order to be able to support it, so I have no need to speak to your extreme and irrelevant points.
On the contrary. I am getting to the heart of the issue. It seems it hits a little too close to home for you. That you think the need for teachers is an extreme position is telling.
You are, again, putting words in my mouth to argue against.
That is 'telling' of your inability to refute what I actually offer.
Some basic training is most often helpful; reading, for instance.
Hermeneutics is not basic training. It is a highly developed skill with notable masters.
So is brain surgery.
Ever hear of 'metaphor'? Any clue what metaphor is in the world of hermeneutics?
One doesn't need 'training' to find 'meaning' (in general).
Or, how can we know that all of Aristotle's 'laws of logic' are refuted by QM?
First of all, there is no general consensus as to what is going on at the quantum level.
Ah, the academic mind seeking 'general consensus' before entering.
There is no need to even respond to such a disingenuous and fallacious comment.
"The greater the Truth, the less the 'general consensus'!"
So, again, rather self-serving nonsense.
Those forming a 'general consensus' are, most often, wrong.
Few there are capable of understanding any depths of QM, there will never be a 'general consensus' at any depth!
"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off the wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!" - Richard Feynman and Chuangtse
How many of your physics/philosophy majors are mystics?
It is not clear whether a probability function is an epistemic or ontological determination. Although popular accounts like to dwell on a conscious observer there are many prominent physicists who reject the idea.
They must be unconscious observers..
And they are wrong, and will be shown to be wrong, and will continue to argue their biases and grant funded beliefs as long as they/you can.
Physicists/scientists are usually incapable of philosophical thought.
That is why physics is a feeder branch of the tree of philosophy.
That is also why science rattles down so many (ultimately) dead ends.
Second, Aristotle’s logic is not refuted by QM.
So you say.
Like classical physics it remains useful at the macro level.
So, for you, temporary pragmatism is a qualifier for Truth?
If that were the case, we'd still be driving Flintstone cars!
The 'useful' is always in flux as Knowledge/experience is gained.
We do not encounter quantum superposition or entanglement in our everyday experience.
Yes we do.
You merely demonstrate your inability to see the relationship between your schizophrenically fragmented 'levels' (micro and macro and all in between).
"As above, so below!" (Don't bother...)
Of course, after learning to read, I can read Aristotle for myself if I need.
You can read the words and perhaps even imagine you are “imbibing” his thoughts, but you will not understand Aristotle at more than a very superficial level.
Another self-serving proclamation. Ignorant, also.
It seems to me that, what you understand and the depth with which you perceive it, would depend on (the basic tools that you were born with, and) your Perspective.
Don’t take my word for it, read him and then read one of the better commentaries and see for yourself how much you did not see or understand.
This is getting boring.
Of course if I was interested in Aristotle's thoughts, no matter how erroneous, I would read him. For data to do my own original synthesis.
IF Aristotle meant that much to me.
WTF are you arguing?
If you like, disappear for a few months/years and go read Aristotle and all the thoughts of others about his thoughts. That aught to keep you out of trouble.
Knowing QM is sufficient without the Aristotelian reference.
Sufficient for what?
How about relevant and modern philosophy.
Unless one needs to show how QM refuted his so called laws of logic.
Then we need to know his laws of logic.
Easily found online, simple. I do not need to waste years prizing out every thought of his that came up with his fallacious 'laws'. Perhaps you need to fill your head with all that sewage. Knock yourself out.
You have never heard of Einstein's 'Beginner's Mind' being so important?
"Einstein’s 'beginner’s mind'"? Beginner’s mind is a concept from Zen.
Yeah, you are 'literally' correct, in a way, but Einstein knew his Zen (but I'm not going to argue this with you);
"Great knowledge combined with a "beginner's mind," however, will help you to see new possibilities in an area where you have a great deal of experience. That is one of the great balancing acts of leadership: how to acquire and use knowledge and experience, while at the same time, be open to answers that lie outside of the paradigm of your "expertise."
Einstein is an example of a great leader who found this balance. He had developed significant knowledge and experience in his field and was an expert. Yet, he was able to set the paradigms aside and look at possibilities far outside the prevailing wisdom. Though his own description of the process he used doesn't explicitly state employing a "beginners mind," that is precisely what he did. He said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge.""
Or, perhaps, someone who didn't learn 'the way it is', and is still free to explore and can think 'for himself'?
One does not do physics without “training/education”. Physicists actually study the work of Einstein and others.
One can train/educate oneself if one can read. It's all online if needed.
Yes, in a way you are correct, but education and training is not necessarily limited to academia.
I hear the educated fools babbling and waving their degrees!
A graduate fool is still a fool, you cannot 'educate' that from them!
Learning ‘the way it is’ is a necessary and indispensable step if one is to go and and think ‘for himself’.
So you say.
You are free to explore and free to ignore the work that has been done and is being done in physics, but doing so is not the key to thinking for yourself if you are to think anything relevant to physics. Or perhaps I am wrong.
I think that I mentioned how knowledge of QM is essential to any relevant/modern philosopher.
How do you think that one becomes conversant with QM, produce section of the market?
So tell us what your contribution is to the field.
If that is a requirement for this conversation, I'd be interested in yours.
What have you discovered without learning something from others?
Shall I begin from the beginning?
I discovered my feet (for myself) at quite the early age.
Need I continue or do you want to argue that?
One benefit of others is that they can tell us where we are misinformed and misguided.
It's my opinion that everyone has an opinion.
And many are the fools that are happy to tell anyone who sees things differently, how 'wrong' they are. Usually incapable of logically/experientially demonstrating and supporting said 'opinions'.
Where what we think for ourselves is at odds with the facts.
'Facts'? How telling for you!
Neither science nor philosophy deal in 'facts'.
'Facts' are whatever YOU are willing to believe!
Actually, there is no difference between 'facts' and 'beliefs'.
Neither belong in science/philosophy!
Unless you have something of import to add, I said what I needed.