I agree it is irrational of me to ask for or expect you to read the whole article, it is a long page after all, but the things i mentioned on my message appear in the introduction, that's between the tittle and the table of contents, and you skipped that XD. The only long ones are the dialectics page, and the new rhetoric, which require reading beyond the introduction, but not taking those into account is what derailed us.
Bamboo Shoots!
Age 34, Male
Poet/Designer/Etc
ACCOMPLISHED
Sweden
Joined on 1/17/04
- Rank:
- Sup. Commander
- Global Rank:
- 7
- Blams:
- 32,072
- Saves:
- 216,988
- B/P Bonus:
- 60%
- Whistle:
- Deity
- Trophies:
- 40
- Medals:
- 11,184
- Supporter:
- 11y 3m 25d
- Gear:
- 11
I might just not have read the introduction the same way as you did. ;) Anyway, seems philosophy in the more casual speech works with "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or certain group". So, that's fine with me, validated rationality and logic or no.
Ok lets say that i tell you that my dog is missing a leg, that is a description, even if you belief that dogs are bipedal cats, it wont change the fact that my dog is a dog and is missing a leg and not a hand, the incompatibility will be reduced to translation, but regardless of it my "cat" still lacks a "hand", and then here's the context we will have to translate the difference between dog and cat, legs and hands, and then you will have to explain why my dog is a bipedal cat, but in the end we will be talking of the same thing.
The problem of course is that there is no absolute truth, just approximations, we are limited to our own knowledge true indeed, but we can feed it with the knowledge of others, then analyse if what others say correlates with what we know, and if it doesn't then we have to know why, in order to find if i am mistaken or the other is mistaken, the model of dissertation that science uses is to go with the system that is both easier to understand and describes the world more accurately, that's why we still use Newtonian physics even when we know that they are not all accurate, but they are simple, but for example if i present the a model that involves the soul, the question appears what is the soul? so from the start it is not easy to understand because it has an abstract concept (that could exist or not), and then it can't be measured (because we don't know if exist or not) thus we don't know how accurate it may be. Philosophy on the other hand follows logic, so things have to be coherent with themselves inside the same line of thought, so if they are contradictory with other lines of thought then it is not really that much of a problem, to solve cases in which 2 opposing arguments appear then Philosophy has various tools among them is empirical proof.
Well references should matter for what they say and not for who they are coming from, for example if you have an argument on a certain theme, you don't need to use... na forget that, you do need references, in this case the reference would be your own research or experience, which only difference is that at least for you it is easier to obtain, so in that sense you are indeed lazy, but for example on that discussion about cancer being fungi, Dr S3C said that the guy making the article wasn't a doctor, he had a master degree but not a doctorate, but tat doesn't really matters if the research made by this guy is accurate and well done, then that is all the validity needed it so just happens that the thing doesn't seems to be the case, just like S3C pointed out, so in the end it all resides on the points of the argument, and not on who is saying them.
How do you enlighten someone without proving something?
Mmm, the exception that proves the rule. Btw, cat hand = paw?
Of course, by absolute truth I mean what holds absolutely true for that particular individual, but it's really the same thing. Speaking of Philosophy using empirical proof, I believe in sense experience over rationality, and yet I prefer rationality before empiricism... which seems to imply I'd be more of a scientist than a philosopher. Which doesn't make sense. :/
Yupp.
By bestowing upon them a new perspective; insight. Basically, just by telling them something they do not already know. Just take the story of the fisherman for example. You tell me your grandfather was a fisherman. I'm enlightened. There we go! (really basic example but I hope you get the point) We've been discussing a lot of abstract matters already that can't be proven too, and I don't know about you, but I feel the discussions enlighten even they lead nowhere. That's the beauty of philosophy, learning new things, constantly evolving as an individual, without neccesarily spending hours worth on research and referencing!
Yeah it would be a paw.
You know i completely forgot about axioms, those are absolute truths regardless of the person.
Well you know for example philosophers like Hume and Kant based their writings on empirical observations, and decided to go from there, they of course recognize that their data was not absolute, so at least Hume only talks about principles and not laws, Kant on the other hand talks about a priory things in the human being, because he was trying to develop universal moral rules, which by now we know are not innate to humans (since we lack thinks like instincts), but a lot of people want to believe in things like dignity and stuff, and that's the problem since Kant tried to be universal a lot of things he said are being harshly criticized, but Hume who talks about principles can get away with similar things.
Well letting you know that my grandfather is a fisherman (he is still alive and fishing XD) is not really enlightening just informative.
But if they lead to nowhere then why would they be enlightening? i see it more as reflexive processes they help to better organize your ideas, it is when they help you change your ideas that they become enlightening, yeah we do have our moments when we are not stuck in circles.
I remember axioms. :) Troublesome little word when it coms to all things potentially subjective.
Mmm. Gotta remember to put in a 'I believe' or 'IMHO' every once in a while when discussing abstract topics...
Enlightening = giving (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation. Apart from being a fancier word for informing, it can be applied to more than just information, like understanding. Understanding as in, not necessarily bound by what you know, but what you feel; experience.
Well, alright, bad phrasing. They lead somewhere, but they don't always lead to an answer. I believe each discussion's an enlightening process, even when non-conclusive. The more inspiring or mind-opening a debate, the more it seems to justify using that word.
That would help a lot, for example when someone arguments about things that they don't believe in, maybe to clarify a concept.
But feelings an experiences are also information, not as reliable, and kinda personal, but information nonetheless.
Yeah i can see how it can be enlightening even if it is non-conclusive, but then if it was non-conclusive it depends of the reason why it became that way, was it because 2 views presented were unable to reconcile? or because there was a lack of information that could continue the debate? if that's the case i do think that it is enlightening because at least it helps to highlight the various views around a point and its different problems, however if it was inconclusive because the discussion was abandoned by the 2 (or more) parties then i don't think it should be considered enlightening.
IMHO I usually take for granted a person believes in that which they argue for.
Definitely, but take this example: you make music, you write a song that makes a person feel a certain emotion and understand what someone near to them is going though. You could say they've been enlightened, but probably not informed. ;)
Hmm, but what if it was abandoned due to lack of information, or because the 2 views were unable to reconcile? And it seems some discussions can go on forever, conclusive or not. But if one party just walks out in the middle of a brewing discussion I'd agree, doesn't feel like they'd have been enlightened, more so that they'd cast aside all potential new learning and abide by their old views.
Well for example i don't believe in Islam being worthy line of guidance, (and the same goes for the derivatives of that book, Catholicism, Judaism, etc), but in favor of clearance i would try to argue and clarify in favor of it to clear misconceptions related to Islam, that's one example, i try to be agnostic, but deep down i am an atheist, i look down on spirituality.
Ok, let me see if i understand, but i think i am missing the point.
You make music that has a certain effect on a person right?
However that doesn't means the listener will understand what a third party that is related to them is going through, let me explain myself:
Guy A makes a musical piece.
Guy B listens to it and is emotionally shaken by it.
Guy B has a friend called Guy C, and Guy C has hit some harsh times.
Why is that this development will lead to "understand what someone near to them is going though."?
Guy B may feel similar to Guy C, but that doesn't means he now understand how Guy C feels, for me it sounds like you are underrating the life experience of Guy C and comparing it to the emotions evoked by a piece of art.
The music made by Guy A could help Guy B to be more sympathetic, but it is far away from being enlightening, if all it took to understand how others experience life was art, then social interaction would be way easier than it is, listen to this podcast here http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2015/01/ep-235-want-to-swap-bodies/. it actually covers the theme at hand.
If it is abandoned due to a lack of information, then they can agree to there being a need for more research, and that can be enlightening, if they stop because they were unable to reconcile it would only be enlightening if they can recognize the points that make the 2 positions incompatible and the principles behind them, without that they pretty much wasted their time, neither learned anything from the other, they are practically walking away from the discussion.
Derivatives? Both Catholicism and Judaism are older than Islam no? Ah, well, same here, kinda. I'm not religious, but being open-minded to all possibilities seems to entail discussing such topics as if I believed in them. Otherwise, there'd be no discussion. Actually that applies to a lot of things...
Listened to the podcast. Interesting stuff on being able to imagine a ten year jail sentence, rubbing rubber hands to emulate rubbing yourself, connection to people of other races, though not really what I was thinking with my example... basically what I meant with this maybe too specific example was: you can convey a sense of understanding through music, without necessarily conveying information. Emotional response can be enlightening. A story. A simile. A change in perception. Etc.
That sums it up!
Lets see first was Abraham, then Moses, then Jesus, and so and so, Solomon should play a role somewhere around there, is the same family in the end, the question will go which scroll is older (since back in the day they didn't had books), and apparently Moses used rocks XD.
Yeah you have to entertain the idea and then go from there, who knows maybe you find something interesting.
Ah i see, well in that case i would say that, emotions and music, are still information, so... think about it, music is a series of audio ques, that when transmitted, may generate a response on the listener, meaning that something is being send, that something will be information in an audio format, and it generates an emotional reaction on the receptor, that reaction is also an expression of information, an emotional kind of information, that can then be tried to be expressed using words, well as far as language may try to do it.
Yeah.
Mmm, Muhammad was later on then.
Yes.
When you put it that way, pretty much anything you perceive/receive would be information right? Makes sense, though it would still feel a bit strange to say 'I've been informed' if I've listened to a particularly deep and resonating piece of instrumental music. ;) In such a scenario: enlightened seems more informative.
Definitively Muhammad was later on, he is a prophet like Jesus or Solomon, and they all belong to the same book (so yeah Rastafarians are from the same hole, is just interesting how they are not as despicable as their brothers, must be the weed XD).
Well it works either way, thought with enlightened it could be more misleading because it makes it sound as if you were listening to some kind of revealing information, and with moving music more often than not people end saying "i don't know, but it makes me feel this way", that i don't know part is the tricky one.
Rastafarians huh, didn't know that was a religion (if it is)! Interesting.
Ah, but then you could be enlightened and not know. Whereas if you were informed, you would know! It'd be the definite attainment of knowledge, verses the abstract notion of somehow being affected in a positive way.
They are like Jews but black, and they believe in Jesus but their prophet is king Solomon, and they for once are not bat shit crazy on converting people, i guess a bigger concern for them would be 420 legalize it XD.
But how can you be enlightened and don't know that you are being enlightened? wont that mean that you are still in the "dark"? metaphors!
Haha, where's there HQ? A lot of them in Israel? Somehow when I think Rastafarians I think US. And Reggae music.
Oh but you'd know you where enlightened. The 'not know' was in reference to the previous "i don't know, but it makes me feel this way". You'd know how you feel, but not necessarily why. So you'd know it's had an effect, but not exactly what. So you'd know you've been enlightened, but maybe not informed. Or... I don't know...
Their HQ is on Jamaica, mon.
Then you are being informed, emotionally informed.
Ah mon! I should've known!
Or enlightened.
Doomroar
We ended in a circle just because we derailed and i had to put us back in place, the theme of discussion in this particular case is rationality on philosophy, your personal beliefs shouldn't really play a role here because they wont change what philosophy deems as rational.
Logic and reasoning means that you have a basis in which you back up your arguments, and to base them in personal experience is fine, except for one thing, it lacks rigor and it is limited to what you know, so for example if someone says "All swans are white" based on its personal experience that would be true, but we know that not all swans are white, thus that person is clearly mistaken on its assertion, this is a basic example that is told to everyone in both philosophy and science.
References and quotes exist to add force to an argument, and make these easier to explain, if you don't have them then you will have to make them yourself, which is great, but is also difficult it means you alone have to justify your claims in a coherent, simple and convincing way.
Science and Philosophy do exactly that, except that they are lines of thought that have existed for years and thus have way more resources, evidence, and experience when making a claim, but that doesn't means that what they say is absolute, not at all, as you can see for yourself the very laws of physics which we use to explain the world are constantly being updates, changed and defied but as Karl Popper says, that's the whole point to be able to refute something, having this in mind science is held in high stem not because it is an absolute truth but because it works at helping us to understand the world as it is, or as close as we can get.
Cyberdevil
Mmm, but my personal beliefs play a role in everything I perceive.
Isn't everything we argue limited to what we know? It's a limitation everyone has to abide by. Nobody knows everything. Knowledge isn't so simple to attain that you can read all material there is on a certain topic and get it. If you start comparing your insights with another person, you might realize you've learned entirely different things even if you both read the same words. Which is why I feel facts are of lesser importance, and personal experience; perspective take precedence. As such, logic and reasoning are both subjective to me. The swan example is simple enough, of course if you read up on Swans you'll learn they're not all white, but on the other hand, if someone has only seen white swans: isn't that their own absolute truth? What we see isn't very different from what we read or learn through other channels. If we live in a certain country, we might be educated in a certain way. We might learn entirely different 'facts' about the Vietnam war if we go to American school VS going to school in Vietnam. So, who can say who's right and who's mistaken? We gain new insights all the time that change our perspective; knowledge, we can't back up all our arguments with facts if there are no facts to fetch, or we have no access to them, or if we disagree with them. That's what I considered the difference between philosophy and science.
Hmm, was about to say they're irrelevant if you're not looking to prove anything, but that'd be contradicting any motives I may have with an argument... I suppose references just don't always exist for the topics I'm concerned with, as such I don't like having to rely on them to make a point... or could it be I just won't be bothered with digging up relevant research hmm. At times they do feel superfluous though. If I just want to speak my mind, there's no need to back up my opinion. It's difficult indeed to justify your own claims in a convincing way! Especially when they're claims that differ from the general perspective.
If it always did work for our absolute betterment it'd be great! I do hold philosophy in higher regard though, maybe because it doesn't seek to prove anything, more so I feel it seeks to enlighten.