I like doing some philosophy Lon - but also feel you hit a nail on the head above. I'd prefer us to philosophise about our actual experiences and examples of research like the following. The way parents manage family arguments can seriously damage their children's mental health later in life. If rows become more frequent as they are growing up, the risk that they will suffer mental health problems as they enter their 30s increases dramatically. In an experiment that has been running for some 30 years, a team of psychiatrists and sociologists followed 346 boys and girls from similar socio-economic backgrounds in New England, starting from age 5. At 15, about half reported that the number of arguments with their parents and between their parents had increased, and 15 years later these people were more than three times as likely as the others to suffer from major depression, or indulge in drug or alcohol abuse. They were also nearly three times as likely to engage in antisocial behaviour, and more than twice as likely to be unemployed (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, DOI: 10.1097/ chi.0b013e3181948fdd). I could point to a lot of other studies, including kids growing up amongst constant domestic violence. We fail to do much about what we can know, and philosophy done half-cocked can convince us not to know and hide from the reality that we can.
I can nearly always find some reason to criticise a point of view, but hope I don't confuse this as an aim in itself. The usual recommendations from research cited above is to get training in place to stop the problems early. We fail miserably. Good philosophy would help us ask why and try to get a wider picture. Instead, ability in it becomes part of plumage and strut. Many of its questions, such as whether blue exists, are designed to get us into ways of thinking, but become a way of life instead. On 30 Mar, 02:25, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > True. And I often wonder if anything much useful is gained from that > sort of discourse. I especially wonder about it when lurking on the > Mind's Eye. > > I used to think that ideas and points of view are a great way to > change ourselves and others for the better. It's hard thing to > believe when you're not sure what better is anymore, or let alone, > Blue. Lately I really wonder if such things as philosophies, ideas, > and religion are just a layer of obfuscation over the a prime, sad > fact that we are just trying to accomplish what other animals try to > accomplish in a much more straight forward manner: fill our bellies, > and spread some seed around. > > We may as well just compare our plumage and strut. > > On Mar 29, 5:30 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've never been a professional philosopher Lon, but it's pretty clear > > talking with them that one is supposed to learn to listen and find > > flaws in arguments, solutions to puzzles within logical rules, flaws > > in the logical rules and learn to recognise what we can proceed with > > practically. It's a bit daft excluding the fact that you are in > > argument with someone by insisting on personally constructed reality > > alone. > > > On 29 Mar, 20:51, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Please explain yourself further.. I'm here to learn. > > > > On Mar 29, 12:33 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I slowly move from mind-only schools to middle-way ontology and > > > > epistemolog...the path is better than regurgitation of memes. > > > > > On Mar 28, 8:13 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A bit inconsistent Lon - but we should be thinking more like this, if > > > > > only to recognise some of the difficulties. My guess that search for > > > > > precision in thought is often the first mistake. > > > > > > On 28 Mar, 13:07, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It seems to me that things exist only in our minds, and only some of > > > > > > those things correspond as best they can to objects in the real > > > > > > world. The idea of object also is only something that exists in our > > > > > > heads. > > > > > > > Suppose I see a flock of Canada Geese flying South for the winter. > > > > > > Then thereafter I was informed that the geese that migrated over my > > > > > > hometown we a newly discovered species of Newfoundland Geese who ate > > > > > > slightly different things than Canada Geese, and had an entirely > > > > > > different mating call. The Newfoundland Geese fly over my town and > > > > > > return from their migration as entirely different geese. > > > > > > > Say a goat with a congenital defect has a single horn growing out of > > > > > > his forehead, and due to a strange reaction to algae in the Amazon > > > > > > River his fur is pink, he is worshiped by a local tribe as a holy > > > > > > creature. Is that a pink unicorn? A teacup is flushed out out of > > > > > > Skylab during an attempt to get rid of worrying odor in the space > > > > > > station's galley, does God now exist? > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 9:10 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Lonlaz, > > > > > > > What do you mean by "exists"? How do you define that word? > > > > > > > Isn't the > > > > > > > question you should be asking not whether something exists, but > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > where it exists? For example, pink unicorns exist, but as far we > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > they only exist in the subjective mind. Canadian geese exist as > > > > > > > well, > > > > > > > but they exist both in the subjective mind, and in the objective > > > > > > > world. In fact pink unicorns are based on our experience as well. > > > > > > > We've experienced the color pink, we've experienced animals with > > > > > > > horns, and we've experienced horses. We combine all those > > > > > > > experiences, muddle things up, and we come up with something that > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > never experienced all at the same time, and so we say that it > > > > > > > exists > > > > > > > only in our subjective mind, but in reality even a pink unicorn > > > > > > > exists > > > > > > > in the objective world, just not in the order we arranged the > > > > > > > objects > > > > > > > in our subjective mind. > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 3:23 pm, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Inspired by the perhaps strange idea of asking if something > > > > > > > > exists or > > > > > > > > not. I ask, does anything really exist at all? Does Blue > > > > > > > > exist, for > > > > > > > > example? > > > > > > > > > Now some of us would say that the very thought of being able to > > > > > > > > refer > > > > > > > > to something by a name would be common sense proof that it > > > > > > > > exists. So > > > > > > > > does a general concesus mean that something exists? What about > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > color blind? > > > > > > > > > Now someone may say, of course there is a color Blue! It can be > > > > > > > > measured! Blue is photons oscillilating at 450 nm. But another > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > say, that is a paltry existence, a bunch of transient particles > > > > > > > > without mass waving about, only to be snuffed out of existance > > > > > > > > by a > > > > > > > > retina. And like the tree that fell in the forest, if the wavy > > > > > > > > particles don't hit a retina, are they still Blue? > > > > > > > > > Muddling the question further, there are those that dispute > > > > > > > > Blue is a > > > > > > > > color at all. These 'Synthenasist' claim Blue is a taste, a > > > > > > > > sound, or > > > > > > > > perhaps even a feeling.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
