Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is Philosophy all in your head? Yes! Like everything else!


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was explaining to CV75 that in philosophy, bearing a testimony is not about professing truth and doesn't have anything to do with what is "actually" true. 

So then define "actual" truth?

After 2500 years, you will be the first!!   Fame and fortune awaits!  ;)

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So then define "actual" truth?

After 2500 years, you will be the first!!   Fame and fortune awaits!  ;)

 

If we are being pragmatic, we don't need to define "actual" truth.  We can deal with the definition sensibly and reasonably to define the word in a practical way that is easily understandable and usable. 

Unfortunately, philosophy is only interested in being pragmatic some of the time.  Other times it's all about being as un-pragmatic as possible.  I'm convinced the way to discover which focus to take depends on which one is going to make the discussion the most convoluted and argumentative, and then choosing that one.  :lol:

Posted
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So then define "actual" truth?

After 2500 years, you will be the first!!   Fame and fortune awaits!  ;)

 

Solipsism.

Anyone that says differently Is just a manifestation of my self-doubt trying to trick me. I shall not be fooled!

Posted
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we are being pragmatic, we don't need to define "actual" truth.  We can deal with the definition sensibly and reasonably to define the word in a practical way that is easily understandable and usable. 

Unfortunately, philosophy is only interested in being pragmatic some of the time.  Other times it's all about being as un-pragmatic as possible.  I'm convinced the way to discover which focus to take depends on which one is going to make the discussion the most convoluted and argumentative, and then choosing that one.  :lol:

Do you actually believe that people would spend several years of their lives, submitting papers to be peer reviewed, which process can actually take years, because they wanted to create the most unintelligible article? 

Or could it be simply that you do not understand the jargon, and so the language APPEARS to you to be unintelligible?   I will be glad to help you through any article with which you are having trouble.

I warned about this early in this thread. Yes, philosophy requires a longer time to read than a novel.   But trust me, if your hypothesis actually exposed what "is the case" I would not have studied it for most of my life, and I certainly would not be a member of this church, and wasting my time with the various callings I have had, trying to teach the gospel.   

There is no historical evidence for the Book of Mormon.In my opinion, if my perception of the church was not supported by personal experiences which I cannot describe or explain,and which were not coherent with my philosophical views,  I would have been out of here years ago.

Nope, it's real, and I hope you will one day see it!  😍

Posted
20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Solipsism.

Anyone that says differently Is just a manifestation of my self-doubt trying to trick me. I shall not be fooled!

And this response proves it.   Think of the logic you just displayed which confirms your view.  Yes, postmodernism is a massive plot to fool you!   You figured it out!

Posted
12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And this response proves it.   Think of the logic you just displayed which confirms your view.  Yes, postmodernism is a massive plot to fool you!   You figured it out!

Everything is a plot to fool me. And my own brain is doing it all. How does one defeat your own brain. It is roughly as smart as I am.

 

Posted
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you actually believe that people would spend several years of their lives, submitting papers to be peer reviewed, which process can actually take years, because they wanted to create the most unintelligible article? 

Or could it be simply that you do not understand the jargon, and so the language APPEARS to you to be unintelligible?   I will be glad to help you through any article with which you are having trouble.

I warned about this early in this thread. Yes, philosophy requires a longer time to read than a novel.   But trust me, if your hypothesis actually exposed what "is the case" I would not have studied it for most of my life, and I certainly would not be a member of this church, and wasting my time with the various callings I have had, trying to teach the gospel.   

There is no historical evidence for the Book of Mormon.In my opinion, if my perception of the church was not supported by personal experiences which I cannot describe or explain,and which were not coherent with my philosophical views,  I would have been out of here years ago.

Nope, it's real, and I hope you will one day see it!  😍

Like I said earlier, I almost minored in philosophy, so I have a basic understanding of it.

Basic, I’m not claiming or pretending to know more than I do.

I enjoyed all my classes, but mostly because it’s really just a lot of debate and people arguing with each other about how the world must be seen. I think philosophy is useful and a lot of fun, but I also think that there comes a point when it’s not useful anymore. When it can become an hindrance to communication.

One of the things that I don’t really like about philosophy, is the tendency for philosophers to insult people who don’t view the world the same way that they do.  It’s OK if you see a lot of value and philosophy that I don’t see. I’ve been enjoying our conversations anyway, where as it looks like you’re just getting more and more annoyed?  You’ve created antagonism in this thread between you and I that only exists in your head.

Which is actually very philosophical of you, I suppose. 😁

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I enjoyed all my classes, but mostly because it’s really just a lot of debate and people arguing with each other about how the world must be seen

I can sympathize with you!  If the class was on "Plato" we talked about Plato, or "Kant" we talked about Kant.   Nothing to argue about- just getting what that particular philosopher thought, so you could pass the essay on your final exam. No arguing!

So my experience was different, so was my "reality" I guess!

Sorry if I offended folks here in this thread- I think I lost at least one friend, so I am sorry about that too, (not you!)  I most certainly did not mean to "start antagonism"!   That was the LAST thing I wanted to do.   And I failed in that respect.

I guess I better stick to my jargon!!  8P8).  Passive aggressive?  I suppose.  Still Gotta work on that one!  Not the first time!

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can sympathize with you!  If the class was on "Plato" we talked about Plato, or "Kant" we talked about Kant.   Nothing to argue about- just getting what that particular philosopher thought, so you could pass the essay on your final exam. No arguing!

So my experience was different, so was my "reality" I guess!

Sorry if I offended folks here in this thread- I think I lost at least one friend, so I am sorry about that too, (not you!)  I most certainly did not mean to "start antagonism"!   That was the LAST thing I wanted to do.   And I failed in that respect.

I guess I better stick to my jargon!!  8P8).  Passive aggressive?  I suppose.  Still Gotta work on that one!  Not the first time!

It's been about 10 years so the class list is fuzzy, but we didn't have any classes on famous philosophers specifically.  We discussed them of course, in the capacity of the focus of the class.  My most memorable class was on the book of Job, and it was especially entertaining because a handful of the students were evangelical Christians.  The professor had fits trying to get those of us who were familiar with the book from a religious perspective to engage with it from a point of view that had little to do with theism.  It was hard!

I also really liked a class on Euthyphro's dilemma. Lots of good discussion/arguments there.  :D 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

My most memorable class was on the book of Job, and it was especially entertaining because a handful of the students were evangelical Christians. 

Interesting.  

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can sympathize with you!  If the class was on "Plato" we talked about Plato, or "Kant" we talked about Kant.   Nothing to argue about- just getting what that particular philosopher thought, so you could pass the essay on your final exam. No arguing!

I double majored in English and philosophy. The philosophy major was in service to my English major -- it was English literature I wanted to know, research, understand, and teach, and I wanted to know philosophy to better understand literature. I didn't "do" philosophy in the sense of trying to make new arguments and contributions to the field (haha), but we did have arguments in classes over the philosopher's arguments.

It was nice that I had fantastic professors, too. The department head even offered a philosophy of literature course :) 

Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I double majored in English and philosophy. The philosophy major was in service to my English major -- it was English literature I wanted to know, research, understand, and teach, and I wanted to know philosophy to better understand literature. I didn't "do" philosophy in the sense of trying to make new arguments and contributions to the field (haha), but we did have arguments in classes over the philosopher's arguments.

It was nice that I had fantastic professors, too. The department head even offered a philosophy of literature course :) 

My philosophy of religion class was one of my all-time favorites. It’s such an interesting discipline in how it can be applied to so many subjects. 

Edited by bluebell
Posted (edited)
On 6/18/2024 at 12:10 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The department head even offered a philosophy of literature course :) 

A lot of this trend grows of course out of the "philosophy of language" and was also pioneered by Rorty after he quit philosophy and went back to studying the nature of literature.

https://philarchive.org/archive/GRIRAL-3#:~:text=Rorty does not even try,(Rorty 1982%2C 142).

Quote

Literary criticism, advocated by him as the presently proper form of intellectual engagement, is merely a contingent label used by intellectuals who “got jobs in universities by pretending to pursue academic specialties” (Rorty 1989, 81). As such, it has nothing to do with “literary qualities”; for its chief merit consists in facilitating “moral reflection by suggesting revisions in the canon of moral exemplars and advisers” (p. 82). Literature, then, in Rorty’s hands, appears to devolve into a lazy catch‐all notion, meant to merely signal a departure from the currently established modes of philosophical writing. However, as we advance in a crabwise fashion through the series of contrasts in which this notion is consecutively placed, it gradually begins to cut a fairly intriguing figure.

May The Farce be with you.  ;)  

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
On 6/15/2024 at 3:57 PM, bluebell said:

I almost minored in philosophy and really enjoyed it (the final class I needed didn't work into my schedule the semester I was graduating so I had to go with both a major and minor in history instead), but ultimately the constant questioning with no real conclusions wasn't really for me either.

It's a fun exercise in thinking though, and I enjoyed the part of it that required you to see things from existential perspectives.

These questions make my head hurt.

Posted (edited)

My major was English and my minor was history but my career for 30 years has been in truss software. Nothing philosophical, just thought I would join the convo:) 

I did two years of pre-engineering, including drafting on a table because only the Professor had a computer. However, calc 4 finally did me in (partying didn’t help!)

Edited by Peacefully
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

My major was English and my minor was history but my career for 30 years has been in truss software. Nothing philosophical, just thought I would join the convo:) 

I did two years of pre-engineering, including drafting on a table because only the Professor had a computer. However, calc 4 finally did me in (partying didn’t help!)

Two years electrical engineering because my dad convinced me I couldn’t get a job in physics.  Loved the science and math, didn’t like the engineering. Maybe I would have but they assumed a familiarity that I didn’t have having taken home ec and made Baked Alaska and dresses instead of worked wood and machines (my dad was not a good teacher for at home projects as he was too focused on getting stuff done and I don’t think it ever occurred to him I was interested until I chose physics even though I was hanging around all the time…girls didn’t do those things), so half the time the engineering classes went whoosh over my head.  I was not good at all for asking for help back then, too shy; switched to psychology as my third love after math and physics.

I didn’t mind computer classes, but wasn’t in love with them.  Not great teachers.  Not great textbooks (textbooks were usually my anchor when I got bad teachers). Was learning Fortran and programing using punch cards.

I took a drafting class.  My class was full of drafting tables which I thought were so cool and no computers.  I loved it.  My mom was an artist, but me little hand eye coordination.  Always embarrassed in art class unless it was finger painting or something like that.  I could manage fine with a ruler and compass and other aids, so first time ever I was proud of something I drew.

Edited by Calm
Posted
On 6/12/2024 at 12:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

I have been discussing some philosophical issues with a friend through email, and I thought it might be useful to put some of it on this board, because I think we need some more philosophical  content here than I have seen hereabouts, of late.

PLUS I have had trouble communicating some philosophical ideas to some very smart LDS folks with good educations- but who have absolutely NO backgrounds in philosophy.

Good for them! 

One can become a doctor or lawyer or CPA, or brilliant businessperson or any one of many other vocations that require heavy brainpower without ever thinking about philosophy,or what it can do for you!

And you would be right!!  You CAN!

BUT I would argue that your life would be better and richer by far with an understanding of what some GREAT THINKERS have thought, and how what they taught just might change your life! 

But the problem is that philosophy is so full of jargon that most of what is written just becomes meaningless for those who do not know the jargon.

You can't read philosophy without knowing the jargon, and you can't learn the jargon without reading it!!   CATCH 22!- (also an example of jargon! )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

I have been pushing a quote from Richard Rorty- perhaps one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century- who also fully represents the entire basis of Postmodernism and relativist thinking.

Incidentally I strongly STRONGLY believe that if our LDS brothers and sisters truly understood these issues, they would have the ability to discuss religious principles in a general way- to secular "religionists" both pro and con. 

 I see this as VERY important for the future of the church

I would say those Rorty quotes are good - the whole thing is there in those quotes.  And they are said very directly, I think for anyone to understand if you think about it.

Maybe I can say it again, even more simply.

Of course there is a world out there that we did not personally create.  Things DO exist that are not in your head.   Like duh! 😉 
 
BUT ALL- 100% of all your EXPERIENCES and all you have learned in school or all you have learned, and spoken and heard and seen and smelled and felt ARE PRODUCTS OF YOUR MIND
Say that again and again to yourself!!
 
Now mentally try to argue against that point.  What idea or thought or bit of knowledge you have is NOT "in you" in one way or another.  If not you, who makes your words come out of your mouth?  ;)
 
You are not sitting in a "chair", you are sitting in a device invented by human perception of what would be "comfortable" which humans, in English have called "A CHAIR"
 
TRY TO ARGUE AGAINST THAT!!
Your entire universe is "in your head"!!!!!!
 
That's it!
ALL OF WHAT YOU CALL REALITY IS IN YOUR HEAD.
 
Brain damage will affect that and everything you "know".
IN YOUR LIFE, what matters is not how the world is outside of your head. because you CANNOT get "outside" your head.
 
"Now we see through a dark mirror"...of our own thoughts and perceptions!
 
Things do not exist --FOR US-- until we create a NAME for them.
 
"And they CALLED IT "the first day" and God saw that it was "good"
This is the most perfect  "pragmatic" description of all time!!
 
They picked up some matter, and re-arranged it so it was USEFUL to mankind, which made it "GOOD".
That's all of it right there.
You cannot argue against it!!   There can BE no argument against it.
So is THAT a "truth claim"?  What IS truth?   No philosopher has come up with an indisputable definition in 2500 years of western philosophy.
 
What do those words even mean without definitions, made by humans??
So let's start there!
What's wrong with what Rorty says here?
 
My personal goal here is to learn how to better communicate these ideas to our members, avoiding the jargon of typical philosophers
 
 
 

 

Posted
On 6/13/2024 at 8:47 PM, The Nehor said:

When Pilate asked Jesus what truth was Jesus didn’t answer.

This seems like an important question given that it's still being asked ~2000 years later.

Any thoughts on why Jesus didn't/wouldn't/couldn't answer?

Posted
2 hours ago, Gervin said:

This seems like an important question given that it's still being asked ~2000 years later.

Any thoughts on why Jesus didn't/wouldn't/couldn't answer?

Been awhile since we last saw you….

Posted
3 hours ago, Gervin said:

This seems like an important question given that it's still being asked ~2000 years later.

Any thoughts on why Jesus didn't/wouldn't/couldn't answer?

Probably because Pilate was exonerating him right after asking. Probably best not to interrupt the judge when they are trying to get the charges against you dismissed.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Gervin said:

This seems like an important question given that it's still being asked ~2000 years later.

Any thoughts on why Jesus didn't/wouldn't/couldn't answer?

I think it was the context of the situation. He answered this question every moment of His life for those who would see and hear. Even in this moment, He is still answering it.

Edited by CV75
Posted
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it was the context of the situation. He answered this question every moment of His life for those who would see and hear. Even in this moment, He is still answering it.

I think you're absolutely right.

Posted
On 7/3/2024 at 12:08 PM, Gervin said:

This seems like an important question given that it's still being asked ~2000 years later.

Any thoughts on why Jesus didn't/wouldn't/couldn't answer?

Because it is not definable.  In 2500 years of western philosophy, no one has been able to suggest a definition which most accept and has not been "proven" to be incoherent.

Posted
On 7/3/2024 at 5:39 PM, CV75 said:

I think it was the context of the situation. He answered this question every moment of His life for those who would see and hear. Even in this moment, He is still answering it.

 

 
Quote

 

John 14:6
King James Version
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...