How is philosophical thought skewed by the characteristics of philosophers?
- Thread starter i-am-your-idea
- Start date
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
i have nothing to declare..
Europeans never really understand Zen.
Yes they do, it is not difficult to understand.
salaam.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Sounds like common bloody sense to me.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
i wasnt saying it is a koan. just that it had the ring of it, in my ears.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Far out
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
Entirely depends on how you view your own thoughts once they are worded and even more on how you want or expect others to view them. All you need to avoid that is self reflection.
salaam.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
far out is not far out
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
That could be an issue as well, fractal geometry could have been explored earlier if mathematicians didn't prefer smooth curves
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
So is this your theory: that the thoughts that people have, are influenced by the personal characteristics and the mental makeup of the people thinking those thoughts?
How long did you work on that one?
Philosophy is about formulating various attitudes and beliefs in an aesthetically pleasing way. And since the attitudes and beliefs would exist whether or not anybody tried to formulate them, its reasonable to conclude that philosophy is a purely aesthetic activity.
Philosophers generally have sufficiently good taste to avoid trite, trippy, paradoxical formulations. The fashion seems to be murky, verbose formulations.
Philosophers generally have sufficiently good taste to avoid trite, trippy, paradoxical formulations. The fashion seems to be murky, verbose formulations.
gorski
customised free radical
Gawd...
OK, a brief sketch of the presumptions of such a proposition:
Sure, philosophical questions are everybody's questions.
That is not to say that everybody will be thinking logically and methodologically carefully, patiently, critically etc. Indeed, many or maybe even most people may not think about those Q's at all. For a variety of reasons.
Which tells us that - like any other activity - it requires proper moral upbringing, good education and intellectual, emotional and other types of encouragement, long term effort, concentration, lots of energy, love, passion and interest in truth as such [rather than lies, as most conformists do].
Without it - no can do. Not just Philosophy, of course, but anything of any real value.
The Q of which language does one use when one is writing or addressing people - NB: in today's environment - who are not Philosophers by profession and hence do not understand the jargon/technical vocabulary - is another matter.
Some [Conservatives] think/feel they don't need to use the simple language, as their audience is not the masses and "everyday people", but rather the privileged few....
Some, like "Marxists" [whatever that might mean these days], do! Take Reich, Lefebvre or Fromm etc. They actually want to address the issues of "action", when Philosophy becomes Reality [and Reality becomes Philosophy at its best, of course!] and hence a practical, emancipatory force. They have the responsibility, in relation to their own principles, to write clearly in a language anyone can understand [without losing any depth, if such a thing can be achieved], when writing non-professional books, articles, pamphlets, when giving interviews, planning a strategy for a movement and writing a programme etc. etc. But even then: not really if they are not addressing people outside the profession, in conditions of division of labour and so on.
Then, there is an issue of individual responsibility towards improving oneself, elevating one's understanding of Human Relations/things of all sorts in various directions.
That, however, depends on the societal and economic forces/structures/family situation/division of labour/etc. etc. -> hence not all people are so inclined or have the time etc.
But that opens up many Q's, re. Humanist education, in particular. I.e. should non-Philosophers have such Humanist education, after all, starting from, say, age 16 or so, for at least 2 years before going to University, then a year or two at the undegrad level, so all have the tools to think critically, at least at an elementary level, so as not to make critical and eve very simple mistakes, logically or methodologically speaking?
And shouldn't all people actually have that opportunity of going to the Uni and shouldn't most people actually take it up, for many a reason....???
But many won't, for quite a while to come. We can debate why that is so. But it will not happen over night... Hence, the demand for non-jargon Philosophical texts is there, as a symptom of the social and cultural, not to mention economic reasons for such divisions, which are present and which will not be eliminated by a mere demand of this sort.
Philosophy "coming down to the masses" without "masses elevating themselves to the level of Philosophy" is NOT going to work!!!
For that [demand] to become inexistent - nothing short of a Revolution in Human Relations, the mode of production and ourselves, as Human Beings, will do...
So, what are the conditions for such a Happening in Human History?!?
OK, a brief sketch of the presumptions of such a proposition:Sure, philosophical questions are everybody's questions.
That is not to say that everybody will be thinking logically and methodologically carefully, patiently, critically etc. Indeed, many or maybe even most people may not think about those Q's at all. For a variety of reasons.
Which tells us that - like any other activity - it requires proper moral upbringing, good education and intellectual, emotional and other types of encouragement, long term effort, concentration, lots of energy, love, passion and interest in truth as such [rather than lies, as most conformists do].
Without it - no can do. Not just Philosophy, of course, but anything of any real value.
The Q of which language does one use when one is writing or addressing people - NB: in today's environment - who are not Philosophers by profession and hence do not understand the jargon/technical vocabulary - is another matter.
Some [Conservatives] think/feel they don't need to use the simple language, as their audience is not the masses and "everyday people", but rather the privileged few....
Some, like "Marxists" [whatever that might mean these days], do! Take Reich, Lefebvre or Fromm etc. They actually want to address the issues of "action", when Philosophy becomes Reality [and Reality becomes Philosophy at its best, of course!] and hence a practical, emancipatory force. They have the responsibility, in relation to their own principles, to write clearly in a language anyone can understand [without losing any depth, if such a thing can be achieved], when writing non-professional books, articles, pamphlets, when giving interviews, planning a strategy for a movement and writing a programme etc. etc. But even then: not really if they are not addressing people outside the profession, in conditions of division of labour and so on.
Then, there is an issue of individual responsibility towards improving oneself, elevating one's understanding of Human Relations/things of all sorts in various directions.
That, however, depends on the societal and economic forces/structures/family situation/division of labour/etc. etc. -> hence not all people are so inclined or have the time etc.
But that opens up many Q's, re. Humanist education, in particular. I.e. should non-Philosophers have such Humanist education, after all, starting from, say, age 16 or so, for at least 2 years before going to University, then a year or two at the undegrad level, so all have the tools to think critically, at least at an elementary level, so as not to make critical and eve very simple mistakes, logically or methodologically speaking?
And shouldn't all people actually have that opportunity of going to the Uni and shouldn't most people actually take it up, for many a reason....???
But many won't, for quite a while to come. We can debate why that is so. But it will not happen over night... Hence, the demand for non-jargon Philosophical texts is there, as a symptom of the social and cultural, not to mention economic reasons for such divisions, which are present and which will not be eliminated by a mere demand of this sort.
Philosophy "coming down to the masses" without "masses elevating themselves to the level of Philosophy" is NOT going to work!!!
For that [demand] to become inexistent - nothing short of a Revolution in Human Relations, the mode of production and ourselves, as Human Beings, will do...
So, what are the conditions for such a Happening in Human History?!?
How to demonstrate the problems of wikipedia in one easy step:
Similar threads
