A subject is whatever is being discussed. It could be anything. That is why it is the highest of all possible words (in terms of scope). A relation is more than one subject that is combined together. So, if we combine the two words, subjects and relations together, it is itself a relation. It is also a subject because we are discussing it. Philosophy can't get any higher (in terms of scope) than that. It isn't possible. There aren't any other words that qualify. Other belief systems can't make that claim.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 6:50 am I'm still unclear on what you're getting at. You mention "other belief systems", as though contrasting them with a belief system that you have proposed. And yet I can't see the belief system that you champion. Is it something to do with "subjects" and their "relations"? What are "subjects"? Are they 'subject matter' (i.e. things), or are they 'human subjects' (i.e. people)? And so on....
Subjects and Relations Philosophy
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
You are being ridiculous.
You are basically wrong. All things listed are methodological philosophies. All ontologies are philosophies.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 6:50 am I'm still unclear on what you're getting at. You mention "other belief systems", as though contrasting them with a belief system that you have proposed. And yet I can't see the belief system that you champion. Is it something to do with "subjects" and their "relations"? What are "subjects"? Are they 'subject matter' (i.e. things), or are they 'human subjects' (i.e. people)? And so on....
OK, so your 'belief system' comprises ideas and their connections, associations and relationships. I think I have just described 'serious thinking', not a belief system. It is as true, and as helpfully-useful, to describe philosophy in this way.
It's not clear what that claim might be. "Better", "higher", and the like, offer little in the way of actual meaning, I suggest.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
The way I have it is that those are not philosophies. They are topics of study. They are abstract. Genealogy, for example, isn't a philosophy just like cartography isn't a map or chemistry isn't a chemical. I think we just had a misunderstanding.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 6:34 pmYou are being ridiculous.
You are basically wrong. All things listed are methodological philosophies. All ontologies are philosophies.
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
This is the system that connections, associations and relationships are in.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 7:17 am
OK, so your 'belief system' comprises ideas and their connections, associations and relationships. I think I have just described 'serious thinking', not a belief system. It is as true, and as helpfully-useful, to describe philosophy in this way.
Forgive me but the OP isn't the whole philosophy. The OP is just how this belief system applies in the world. I'd post the whole thing here but it is quite long. If you like you can see the whole thing here which is the second post in this blog: http://subjectsandrelations.com/blogs/
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
You are only dodging to shore up your absurd Opening Post, which is at best confused, and at worst totally ignorant.JHuber wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 4:24 pmThe way I have it is that those are not philosophies. They are topics of study. They are abstract. Genealogy, for example, isn't a philosophy just like cartography isn't a map or chemistry isn't a chemical. I think we just had a misunderstanding.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 6:34 pmYou are being ridiculous.
You are basically wrong. All things listed are methodological philosophies. All ontologies are philosophies.
Semiotics, in particular is a thouroughly persued philosophy by many modern philosophers.
You are wrong fundementally since what you think does not exist, is so mundanely obvious that no one would consider it worthwhile to name it as a separate philosophy, since it has so many branches
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
JHuber wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 4:45 pmThis is the system that connections, associations and relationships are in.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 11th, 2021, 7:17 am
OK, so your 'belief system' comprises ideas and their connections, associations and relationships. I think I have just described 'serious thinking', not a belief system. It is as true, and as helpfully-useful, to describe philosophy in this way.
In software design, there is a saying, "Everything is a network"; this is true, and universal too. In everyday thinking, we sometimes say that "everything is connected to everything else", which is just a restatement of the same truth. As Douglas Adams put it, you can extrapolate the whole universe from a piece of fairy cake - another restatement, with a little added humour.
Your "belief system" is simply "everything is a network". In your case, the network nodes are the "subjects", and the nodal interconnections are your "relations". This is not a belief system. It isn't even a system, just a simple aphorism.
"Who cares, wins"
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy
As it was brought up in another post, human consciousness could be said to be stationary in relation to reality, but I could point out that it could be that reality is stationary to consciousness or that they are both synchronized in whatever the case is. Angle-time cyclostationarity is used in brain signals to exploit synchronization. In this matter I could explain the word “harsh”.
Harsh is a subjective judgement done by consciousness thus, it is also a variable of projection that could show ample subjective individual values.
As an observer, I might say overreacting or being dismissive. Anyway, psychoacoustic function is a modulating variable used in the many stochastic spectrums of consciousness. Example: It is my opinion that Tom Brady goes in a stochastic repetitive function to activate his laser arm (brain image) reciting his mantra of higher numbers. He overreacts when the League wants to make it fair.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023