The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Asif wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 10:17 am
So philosophy is not freethinking its dictation by academia.
It's not just any arbitrary thing. What is?
So you can't distinguish between free and arbitrary?
People think extremely well without any lessons.
Do you think academia is needed for thinking?
Or are not we free to think for ourselves?
Weren't you just a moment ago discussing that it's not the case that "anything goes" in a philosophy course? For example, you couldn't just turn in a poem or a painting or something like that for an assignment.
Yes,I said that as a criticism that you couldn't hand in a philosophical poem in an philosophy class.
A bit of reading comprehension would be nice!
The point is classes suppress and reject free philosophical thought.....This is not hard to understand you know....
Skyblack wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 5:00 pm
Is the poster implying poems are beneath philosophy? And Philosophy hasn't, and cannot, be expressed by the means of poems?
Me personally,most of the greatest truths are expressed intuitively,poetically. Real poetry is vastly superior to dialectics.
I think most philosophers,especially in academia view poetry as great literature. They prefer rhethoric and sophistry,AKA,dishonest poetry.
Right, but the poster to whom you were responding seemed to imply that poetry is inferior, which is why i was asking a question if that's what he or she is implying.
Skyblack wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 5:08 pm
Right, but the poster to whom you were responding seemed to imply that poetry is inferior, which is why i was asking a question if that's what he or she is implying.
I got that implication as well. But I took the opportunity to clarify and express what I think is the value of poetry. This whole thread has further shown how insular and unfree academic philosophy is.
So you can't distinguish between free and arbitrary?
People think extremely well without any lessons.
Do you think academia is needed for thinking?
Or are not we free to think for ourselves?
Weren't you just a moment ago discussing that it's not the case that "anything goes" in a philosophy course? For example, you couldn't just turn in a poem or a painting or something like that for an assignment.
Yes,I said that as a criticism that you couldn't hand in a philosophical poem in an philosophy class.
A bit of reading comprehension would be nice!
The point is classes suppress and reject free philosophical thought.....This is not hard to understand you know....
Right, because doing philosophy isn't the same thing as writing poetry. There are limits on what you can do in every class; you couldn't just do any arbitrary thing. That doesn't mean that anyone is suppressing free thought in the scope of the subject matter at hand.
Skyblack wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 5:08 pm
Right, but the poster to whom you were responding seemed to imply that poetry is inferior, which is why i was asking a question if that's what he or she is implying.
It's not an inferior/superior issue. It's an issue of an automobile tire not being a harpsichord.
So you can't distinguish between free and arbitrary?
People think extremely well without any lessons.
Do you think academia is needed for thinking?
Or are not we free to think for ourselves?
Weren't you just a moment ago discussing that it's not the case that "anything goes" in a philosophy course? For example, you couldn't just turn in a poem or a painting or something like that for an assignment.
Yes,I said that as a criticism that you couldn't hand in a philosophical poem in an philosophy class.
A bit of reading comprehension would be nice!
The point is classes suppress and reject free philosophical thought.....This is not hard to understand you know....
Right, because doing philosophy isn't the same thing as writing poetry. There are limits on what you can do in every class; you couldn't just do any arbitrary thing. That doesn't mean that anyone is suppressing free thought in the scope of the subject matter at hand.
With respect mate,your not following anything I've wrote. Either go back and read what I have written or don't bother commenting.
I'm wasting time on refuting strawman or spoonfeeding you.
It's clear what I am saying about philosophy and freethought.
You obviously are not following the difference between arbitrary and freethought!
Weren't you just a moment ago discussing that it's not the case that "anything goes" in a philosophy course? For example, you couldn't just turn in a poem or a painting or something like that for an assignment.
Yes,I said that as a criticism that you couldn't hand in a philosophical poem in an philosophy class.
A bit of reading comprehension would be nice!
The point is classes suppress and reject free philosophical thought.....This is not hard to understand you know....
Right, because doing philosophy isn't the same thing as writing poetry. There are limits on what you can do in every class; you couldn't just do any arbitrary thing. That doesn't mean that anyone is suppressing free thought in the scope of the subject matter at hand.
With respect mate,your not following anything I've wrote. Either go back and read what I have written or don't bother commenting.
I'm wasting time on refuting strawman or spoonfeeding you.
It's clear what I am saying about philosophy and freethought.
You obviously are not following the difference between arbitrary and freethought!
Oy vey. You're the one who gets it. There are limitations to anything for it to be considered that thing. That doesn't imply a lack of freedom within the boundaries of what it is to be doing the thing in question. It's not the case that just anything you might propose would count as doing a particular thing.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 5:19 am
I have some strong views on various issues that people think of as political, which I think of as simply pragmatic, but age has diminished my care about what others think or believe.
As you say, there will always be those who disagree. This is inevitable, as we rely on others to do jobs that we find distasteful or for which we are poorly equipped. Those doing those jobs might find your job to be anathema. Together we make a society, even if we rub each other the wrong way at times.
But human carry-on is less interesting to me than trying to better understand this insanely complex, baffling and compelling reality that inspires and torments all of us, regardless of political persuasion. My main interests lie around the processes leading up to abiogenesis and consciousness. There's some politics in there too - neuro-centrism/materialism vs panpsychism vs proto-consciousness vs theistic ideas etc - but the phenomena themselves are the main game, not epistemological models. I find these phenomena mind-boggling and hard to understand.
There's much larger realities that dwarf and encompass our little human shadow plays currently occupying a single planet about 13.8 BILLION years after what I like to think of as a virtual particle that ran amok.
There's too much out there (and in here) that's interesting to get too bogged down with politics IMO.
OK. You get that I mean politics in the broad sense of materialism,theism etc,etc. But your valuation that humans are a little shadow resulting from a "particle run amok" is itself a political ideology. That is what my post is saying. It seems you are wrestling with materialist political ideology. But one can wrestle without embracing the ideology. I thought that is what real philosophy aspires to. A critique of dogma.
I am not a materialist who denies the spiritual aspects of life, neither am I a spiritualist who denies the importance of the material world either. I'm agnostic, ever undecided about many aspects of reality.
My impression is that we need more information, or to become more intelligent, to know what's going on with reality. This was the case for early Homo sapiens and it's the case today, although great progress has been made in a relative sense. My opinion is popular with neither materialists nor spiritualists - with each strongly believing that they are correct - which suggests to me that my agnosticism and acceptance of current human limitations is the most logical and reasonable way to go.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 5:19 am
I have some strong views on various issues that people think of as political, which I think of as simply pragmatic, but age has diminished my care about what others think or believe.
As you say, there will always be those who disagree. This is inevitable, as we rely on others to do jobs that we find distasteful or for which we are poorly equipped. Those doing those jobs might find your job to be anathema. Together we make a society, even if we rub each other the wrong way at times.
But human carry-on is less interesting to me than trying to better understand this insanely complex, baffling and compelling reality that inspires and torments all of us, regardless of political persuasion. My main interests lie around the processes leading up to abiogenesis and consciousness. There's some politics in there too - neuro-centrism/materialism vs panpsychism vs proto-consciousness vs theistic ideas etc - but the phenomena themselves are the main game, not epistemological models. I find these phenomena mind-boggling and hard to understand.
There's much larger realities that dwarf and encompass our little human shadow plays currently occupying a single planet about 13.8 BILLION years after what I like to think of as a virtual particle that ran amok.
There's too much out there (and in here) that's interesting to get too bogged down with politics IMO.
OK. You get that I mean politics in the broad sense of materialism,theism etc,etc. But your valuation that humans are a little shadow resulting from a "particle run amok" is itself a political ideology. That is what my post is saying. It seems you are wrestling with materialist political ideology. But one can wrestle without embracing the ideology. I thought that is what real philosophy aspires to. A critique of dogma.
I am not a materialist who denies the spiritual aspects of life, neither am I a spiritualist who denies the importance of the material world either. I'm agnostic, ever undecided about many aspects of reality.
My impression is that we need more information, or to become more intelligent, to know what's going on with reality. This was the case for early Homo sapiens and it's the case today, although great progress has been made in a relative sense. My opinion is popular with neither materialists nor spiritualists - with each strongly believing that they are correct - which suggests to me that my agnosticism and acceptance of current human limitations is the most logical and reasonable way to go.
OK. It's good you don't deny the spiritual or material aspects of life. And I know those who don't deny those aspects are looked upon aspects by those two camps.
But personally,I don't find agnosticism a good stance. Too wishy washy not enough confidence.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2021, 5:19 am
I have some strong views on various issues that people think of as political, which I think of as simply pragmatic, but age has diminished my care about what others think or believe.
As you say, there will always be those who disagree. This is inevitable, as we rely on others to do jobs that we find distasteful or for which we are poorly equipped. Those doing those jobs might find your job to be anathema. Together we make a society, even if we rub each other the wrong way at times.
But human carry-on is less interesting to me than trying to better understand this insanely complex, baffling and compelling reality that inspires and torments all of us, regardless of political persuasion. My main interests lie around the processes leading up to abiogenesis and consciousness. There's some politics in there too - neuro-centrism/materialism vs panpsychism vs proto-consciousness vs theistic ideas etc - but the phenomena themselves are the main game, not epistemological models. I find these phenomena mind-boggling and hard to understand.
There's much larger realities that dwarf and encompass our little human shadow plays currently occupying a single planet about 13.8 BILLION years after what I like to think of as a virtual particle that ran amok.
There's too much out there (and in here) that's interesting to get too bogged down with politics IMO.
OK. You get that I mean politics in the broad sense of materialism,theism etc,etc. But your valuation that humans are a little shadow resulting from a "particle run amok" is itself a political ideology. That is what my post is saying. It seems you are wrestling with materialist political ideology. But one can wrestle without embracing the ideology. I thought that is what real philosophy aspires to. A critique of dogma.
I am not a materialist who denies the spiritual aspects of life, neither am I a spiritualist who denies the importance of the material world either. I'm agnostic, ever undecided about many aspects of reality.
My impression is that we need more information, or to become more intelligent, to know what's going on with reality. This was the case for early Homo sapiens and it's the case today, although great progress has been made in a relative sense. My opinion is popular with neither materialists nor spiritualists - with each strongly believing that they are correct - which suggests to me that my agnosticism and acceptance of current human limitations is the most logical and reasonable way to go.
OK. It's good you don't deny the spiritual or material aspects of life. And I know those who don't deny those aspects are looked upon aspects by those two camps.
But personally,I don't find agnosticism a good stance. Too wishy washy not enough confidence.