Henri Lefebvre - Rhythmanalysis
Dawn Lyon - What is Rhythmanalysis?
Yi Chen - Practising Rhythmanalysis

(anyone have recommendations around this?)

I know he's not on the list, but Heidegger gets my vote.

Why do you need a why?

Readable contemporary philosophy from the continental side? Good luck with that. — S

Predictable lame analytic response.

Keith Ansell-pearson - Philosophy and the adventure of the Virtual

Why do you consider it 'gold'? — Amity

The sites that let you read almost any philosophy work for free are gold! I guess most people know them anyway.

Fair enough

please don't share the gold.

Here is something I just read from whitehead:

“The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the
ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative
generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational
interpretation”

I don't take a position on God, whether he exists or not, or whether he's finite or not. — YuZhonglu

I think you do. As I think everyone must. Because to exist, is to have experience and the way one experiences reality is their unique position of God.

But since I can't see it, and you can't see it, and no one can see it, and no one can really talk about it, then why spend the effort? If the infinite can't be comprehended, why try? — YuZhonglu

I didn't say you can't see it.

You can perhaps not understand, or experience God in absolute totality (though some would argue you can and I am not going to dispute that). Still, you can explore God as a finite being and experience all that comes with that.

I mean, when a person writes about God they're writing about their concept of God, correct? Since their concepts of God differ, then naturally that means each person is writing about a different God — YuZhonglu

Well if you take the position that God is infinite and man is finite, then all of man's different conceptions of God can be thought of as a perspective. Each individual has a unique finite slice (perspective) of the whole infinite. Everyone has a different turn of the kaleidoscope. The Hindus represent this well with many, many Gods as facets of an infinite reality (or God). Ultimate reality as multiplicity.

Same God, different perspectives. As is to be expected from the finite positions we all share.

Philosophy is buggery

Grammar providing a boundary is not much acceptable but however you said grammar provides a shape to creativity which is quite a good one — Tarun

How can you form, or recognise, shapes without boundaries? Boundaries are the thresholds, the limits.

Iambic pentameter is a type of English poetry. It isn't a measurement — Tarun

It is a measure of metrical feet. It's called scansion. Are you denying that such a thing exists? It's a fundamental aspect of poetry.

A line of verse with five metrical feet, each consisting of one short (or unstressed) syllable followed by one long (or stressed) syllable - is known as iambic pentameter. There are other forms of measurement, such as: trochees, anapest, dactyl, spondees.

A poem is something that cannot be measured. — Tarun

Iambic pentameter?

Now, what can be the most essential for a poem?
Creativity or grammar? — Tarun

It's creativity primarily. The idea of poetry is that setting limits enhances one's creativity, or gives direction to, rather than restrict it. Grammer provides a boundary, or a shape to creativity. You could call it a bound infinity.

thanks

I prefer to think truth as a multiplicity of paths that each one of us must carve out.

Don't know much about krishnamurti. Was he a non-dualist 'thinker' ?

Conscious moments are perceived approximately every 40-50 milliseconds — Bryon Ehlmann

Where did you get this from?

The use of generality in mathematics is that it allows abstractions (e.g., thoerem proved about an abstract triangle) to be applied to a multitude of situations: piece of land, movement of celestial bodies, trajectory of a ball, whatever.

Generality becomes specific when it is applied to the concrete. Generality gives movement to concepts/abstractions. In detaching from the material to the ideal, concepts are born. Generality is this detachment, or perhaps it is the realm where concepts flow (yeah there's some poetic licence here).

We could not even think metaphysical without the ability to generalise.

You don't know anything at all. Even worse, you think you do.

It seems like philosophical discussion follows this movement from the general to precision. You never see a philosopher say, "wait, let's make this a little more vague". The general is the macro. Philosophy enhances details by zooming into the micro.

But is this movement ever complete? At which point does the general stop being general?

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

I find it fascinating to explore concepts. To dive deeply; draw out intricacies; problematize; make connections. Some concepts I keep coming back to: multiplicity, difference, duration, motion, event, immanance, singularity, becoming, virtual.

What is the word for perception in philosophy/psychology? In french we have to say "perceive by senses" to talk about the image that can be formed in the mind (the image of this car with no meaning) that bring to "perceive" an object by the mind (the car with a meaning). Is it the same in english? — Herve

Salut.

In English when you say perceived by the senses, that refers to a result of perceived empirical sense data (sight, sound, taste etc). For this you would say percept.

For a mental image, or representation, that isn't caused by sense data you would say concept.

As an example, I could define “truth” to mean having the quality of corresponding to fact or reality. Then we would argue not only on this definition; but also of the definitions of “quality”, “correspond”, “fact”, and “reality”. This could go on for months. — Noah Te Stroete

What you describe is part of the process that is involved in defining concepts. There is a fleshing out. Defining is a becoming that is never finished or complete.

I agree with
I have 2 children and would feel like I had failed in my role as a parent - to enable them to live independently and start their own families, go confidently towards their own adventures and mistakes - if they still lived with me at the ripe old age of 30.

BTW I am not judging you wallows, but giving my honest reaction to the situation you describe.

A story scientists tend to tell themselves is that science is about fact and philosophy about opinion. Until you get to philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn, for whom scientific change involves revolutions in theoretical conventions that imply a hopeless entanglement of fact and interpretation from the bottom up.
You don't think that the very foundation of modern empirical science is set of (unexamined) metaphysical assumptions? And that 'progress' in science amounts to a continual transformation in those metaphysical assumptions? — Joshs

As Heidegger said, "The real 'movement' of the sciences takes place when thier basic concepts undergo a more or less radical revision which is transparent to itself. The level which a science has reached is determined by how far it is capable of a crisis in its basic concepts."

A prayer should be in a form of request and when granted by God, it is a gift. Although this theory somewhat contradicts with free will and human's rational capability, a request - happens for a reason. When Jesus was tempted by Satan - he was dared to 'call thy angels as the Lord will catch you when you fall'. That is no longer considered as a request, as it is more of a condition, than a request. — SethRy

So what is the request in a prayer of thanksgiving?

To see what would happen after I was convinced of the existence of God. I thought, "Hey, I don't care if the dog dies, but if I pray will it live?" The answer to the prayer further convinced me, but I don't count prayer as a complete form of evidence. I also use the term 'believe' rather loosely, because I don't believe so much as I am convinced. — OpinionsMatter

It seems that you were convinced of God already before you prayed. That means that the outcome of the situation, which you prayed about, had to pass through and be interpreted by your *I already believe in god* filter.

Also you said one shouldn't test god. Then you did exactly that by praying about the dog simply to see what would happen.

Why did you pray for the dog then?

I would like elaboration on point 4.

Yes but belief sans evidence is a modern derivation that had nothing to do with the word in its original form. Wherever the word pistis appeared in the NT, it carried with it these significations (assurance, persuasion, trust) which were known to the Greeks. The nuance and richness of the word was lost through transliteration somewhere along the way. I think its worth getting at the etymological roots. The title of the thread is: faith - it's not what you think. I'm inclined to agree.

Faith is often taken to be 'blind' belief, without proof or evidence. But in classical Greek pistis (faith) had significations 1: that which gives confidence/assurance 2: means of persuasion (such as an argument or proof).

The only thing I will say now is that I have a bad habit of presenting things in a manner of fact way. I should qualify my posts more often to show that, yes indeed these thoughts are my speculations, explorations. I am not really making any grand claims, I am musing, experimenting. This is philosophy for me: that you are allowed to speculate. To go off piste. To be creative. There is always someone who wants to set the limits, stick to the rules.

Im not interested in tit for tat, or a game of 1upmanship.

Took you 30 seconds to find an article that matches your dogmatic opinion. How many contradicting articles did you reject first?
Here's a study that states the opposite:
(brain scans that show dogs process language in a different way to humans)

https://www.inverse.com/amp/article/49944-dog-brains-language-words&ved=2ahUKEwjekb_wvpPhAhUD1uAKHaGBBtoQFjAMegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1HRGN5PvHMq_yGqNsJZVhD&ampcf=1

Anyway, I was not referring to neuroscience. You are stuck on that empiricist train

Yeah, I know, but next time you need a doctor I bet you'll go see one who has empirical evidence rather than ask your mate what they reckon is wrong with you. When you want a bridge built you go to an engineer who has empirical evidence that their design works, not just some guy who reckons his design might hold up.

You already admit in everyday life that empirical evidence, where it is possible to obtain it, is better than guesswork, so why abandon it in philosophy? — Isaac

Your first paragraph references mastery over our empirical environment. Your second paragraph assumes we should shoehorn metaphysics into an empiricist lens or way of thinking, when that is merely one way for us to approach our experience of reality.

Shame you limit philosophy in such a way.

You're not one of those people who needs empirical evidence before he can get out bed in the morning? I'm not gonna get into the empirical evidence game, even though I think there is a lot to back up my claim (though it is really Bergsons). I just don't give the monopoly of knowldege/truth/exploration/meaning to the scientists.

You make an implicit connection there between dog and man, as if they do or even could have the same way of experiencing meaning. Dogs do not understand significations. I doubt they conceptualise their reality in the way we do. They react to tone of voice, not the words themselves. They learn that 'sit' means move my body this way, but it drilled into them through repetition and the promise of treats. It is an auditory stimuli they respond to. They are reacting to stimuli but not forming meaning in the nuanced way of the anthropocene. It is their own animalistic way of making meaning. But in that sense, taken to the extreme, the flower finds meaning in the event of photosynthesis. Meaning as an interpretive reaction to an encounter with other. When the ameoba is prodded by a stick there is a kind of proto-meaning. It reacts to touch but there is no thought process there. I would say the dog is somewhere on this spectrum and man is the apex. Man has evolved beyond sensory reactions, in that, a gap has emerged between stimuli and reaction that allows for, and is in fact, thought.

To except something as it is, for what it is, is enough. We need not know how large, heavy, fast it is, It is what it is and thats that. A child seldom asks how many horse power or Kilowatts an Engine Has. It sees the vehicle pass, and thats it. Wow. Then moves on to the next wonderfull thing. — Nort Fragrant

This is completely wrong. I am a father of two children. My eldest is 4 years old and I can tell you that there is not a day that goes by when he does not ask questions about the nature of things. Children are curious but its usually drilled out of them by annoyed parents or teachers.

. In essence it digs what's left of philosophy out of the massive pit it had burrowed itself into and gives it a purpose in an age where 'reckoning' how the world is from an armchair no longer passes muster. — Isaac

Interesting. Perhaps it's because I read mostly continental stuff, yet this doesn't seem like a unique vision. Maybe this was a bigger deal in the analytic tradition. I have heard that Witty crossed the analytic/continental divide though.