Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 8:56 am
Asif wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 8:45 am
OK. You claim folks are using the same methods but they are coming up with diametrically opposed realities. Somebodies wrong! Could it be different methods are used and that some are
using political valuations? Some methods are suppressed or controlled.
What do you have in mind there. What would be a "political valuation" or something that's suppressed or controlled (that's political . . . well, or not)?
You obviously value philosophy having done degrees,published,etc,etc,are you telling me you don't think it's the best method to understand the world and better than others?
It's just different. Different methodologies have their merits in my view. It's simply different perspectives of the same stuff. Different facets of the jewel so to speak.
Re "political" views, on stuff like that I'm extremely laissez-faire, basically a minarchist libertarian. Let your "freak flag" fly (and let others fly their own). ("freak flag" was a hippie thing--I'm kind of an old hippie, or at least I was kind of raised by old hippies/libertines (I was a bit young to be socially active in the actual hippie era--I was born in 1962) and have a lot of those dispositions.) So I'm not someone who wants to crush other folks' grooves, at least not as long as they're letting other people do their own thing, too.
Basically academia is run politically and always has been. Previously it was dominantly religious,now its dominantly materialist. And at all times free thought is only lowest within certain parameters. For instance a true mystic would be shunned by academia and religious authority in many cases.
In this way even those that are freer have to toe the line of what is acceptable to academia. You can't submit a philosophical poem to an analytic philosophy department.
It's not different perspectives because folks don't even agree there is a jewel!
I appreciate your political laissez faire stance,that's good.
But I don't see the point in thinking philosophy is just perspectives. And in reality philosophers act with certainty around their theories,this is why they get so animated when their pet theories are rejected. That's the politics,the debating with a view to denigrate common sense and Intuition. The dialectic and scientific method both do this.
Science dictates Public policy,that's politics.