Good post, EBED: One question.... do you think that the course of Philosophy (or History for that matter) is.... progressive? What I mean is, is the latest or most modern "turn" in the course of philosophy the most probable or "true"? That seems to me to be an implied conclusion in your reasoning (if not an explicit one). "In Western Culture, that means that a person thinking with unexamined thoughts, will be using they logic and reasoning (or lack of) of the philosophers that came 60-100 years before them. And in 30-60 years, the masses will be thinking using the logic and reasoning of current philosophers. So on a very personal, real level, Philosophy is practical. / EBED" Myself, I don't go back to the Greeks.... but I do go back to the "mideaval Scholasctics" for my main inspiration.... Personally, I think philosophically the last few centuries, from Kant on (Phenomenology or transcendental Idealism), is a waste of my own time, in my own opinion, at least.... nominal9
On Dec 14, 2:04 am, Ebed <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we could argue that philosophy is of first importance, period. > This is true whether we are talking about an individual, a sub- > culture, a culture, or the masses in general. It's not sufficient to > speak of the "current state" of philosophy without taking a look at > the history of thought that got us here. > > If we look at said history, we find patterns which affect our thinking > whether we realize it or not. We need to realize that "thought," used > here in a broad stroke definition, since Plato (and arguably for all > human history) has always originated from philosophers. It's paramount > to remember that even though there is now a "school" named Philosophy, > philosophers have always existed as the "thinkers." So thoughts, > ideas, theories, originate from the thinkers, but never stay here. The > general rule is that ideas are transmitted from Philosophy down > through the other medias. It goes something like Philosophy, Art, > Music, Pop Culture. This last part is the "masses." Remember that the > transmission takes years. A good example of this, is the transmission > of Existentialism. (Again, in generalized terms). > > Forgive me for my convulsion. I lack the eloquence other posters seem > to brim with. My point is simply that nothing is more practical than > philosophy. If I, or you, or anybody, leaves their thoughts > unexamined, I, you, they will by extension use only the logic and > reason that their culture gives them. In Western Culture, that means > that a person thinking with unexamined thoughts, will be using they > logic and reasoning (or lack of) of the philosophers that came 60-100 > years before them. And in 30-60 years, the masses will be thinking > using the logic and reasoning of current philosophers. So on a very > personal, real level, Philosophy is practical. > > There is one other thing I'd like to submit to your critique. I think > we do ourselves a disservice when we don't talk about presuppositions. > We all have them, and yet so often we don't deal with them properly, > and tragically sometimes continue thinking as if they weren't there to > begin with. This becomes especially important when we wish to discuss > the practicality of either a philosophy, or Philosophy in general. > Remember that no matter how removed Philosophy as an institution seems > to be, it can never escape being personally relevant and practical, > because in practice it's always done by an individual (or group of > individuals). > > More to say, but we can save that for another discussion. > > On Nov 4, 12:01 am, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello Chazwin > > thanks a lot for the great enlightement. your post is great, awesome. > > It offered me a perspective that I did not have about philosophy. Yes > > I have my reservations > > about the current state of philosophy, but your point of view is > > instructive, it has helped me get a broader view on the subject. I > > still have questions on why the relevance of philosophy to the masses, > > since by nature it excludes the majority through the use of vague and > > idealistic themes and the like. > > > My heart goes out to you on your current situation, Your great > > attitude and positive perspective to such an experience leaves me to > > one conclusion. > > You are a great men. I trust in all confidence that you will get > > through this. I have an uncle who was diagnised with cancer, and he is > > a survivor. One thing I noticed about him that I have noticed also in > > you that was critical to him going through the whole ordeal was his > > great attitude and realism. > > > Be blessed and stay blessed. > > > Regards > > > Greg > > > On Nov 1, 8:04 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sometimes philosophy may seem detached from ones everyone activities, > > > but that is because we often talk about the details. But it is the > > > detail upon which we build our overall outlook and approach to life. > > > ANd it is with these broad brush strokes or philosophical stands that > > > we can apply our life strategies. > > > Lately, having being diagnosed with cancer and currently undergoing a > > > severe and aggressive treatment regime, I have found muc consolation > > > in the philosophies of Sartre and Albert Camus, especially the notion > > > epitomised by the utter absurdity of life. With this type of outlook > > > there is no guilt, fear, blame, false hope, there is only me and my > > > experience of my treatment and the result. > > > Nothing else makes sense: I am not being punished by god, there is no > > > bad karma: cancer is a denial of ID and an affirmation of scientific > > > method. This philosophy has enabled me to more easily come to terms > > > with my inevitable mortality. > > > If your philosophy does not do this for you then maybe you should > > > consider some others? > > > > On Oct 31, 12:52 pm, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Philosophy has become a field were people indulge in discussions that > > > > have no value to practical life, especially if we are to consider the > > > > amount of application of the mental faculties that is expanded in > > > > arguing over terminology instead of solving the issue at hand. The > > > > definition of philosophy is itself subject to many, varied and complex > > > > permutations that do not add value to the field of study. > > > > > The techniques of philosophy would eliminate most of the practical > > > > benefits derived from science, engineering and technology if they were > > > > applied in those fields today. Philosophy has developed to a > > > > intangible, connceptually incoherent and useless field of study with > > > > no benefits to everyday life. This is undoubtedly not the essence of > > > > true philosophy, even in the more abstract things of life we use > > > > common sense and practical reasoning to come to conclusions. > > > > > Philosophy in essence should provide and solidify the knowledge > > > > frameworks of everyday life permutations, adding value to humanity. > > > > > A Call for practical philosophy > > > > > Greg- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
