I use the decision tree but also just playing as I already know what to do. It depends on the situation.

What kind of logic uses decision trees?


It is a misspelling of thinking.


What makes you think that a person who studied logic will be better at this game than a person who hasn't?
Let's assume that none of them have played this game before. I am not sure that studying logic helps that much.
What do you think?

I study logic and it is mostly about argument, things like syllogism or A implies B. Nothing of that seems to be directly used in Four in a row.

What I think often happens is that people don't see the similarities. I listened to a Catholic Priest talking about this. He said that Buddhism can in the beginning teach you important things but later on Buddhism won't be of that much help.
My understanding is that all religions speak of how there are more to being a human than focusing on the material world. The solutions are different!
Also, Buddhism rejects materialism, I think. I've yet to hear a Buddhist who likes Feuerbach.

How are they two unlikely approaches?

No!!!!

What?

I say that it is about antithesis, thesis and synthesis.
Like in my other thread. We took reductionism and holism. I took two views: they are two methods in conflict with eachother so they can't be used together (antithesis?) and they are two methods that work very well together (thesis?).
I then came to a synthesis: they can work together in different ways and certain situations need one more than the other.

Where can I learn more about this?

Because I never found good info for beginners!

And holism and reductionism can actually work together.

We have methods and we have philosophy, right?
That's the same thing with hermeneutics: it is methods and philosophy. It is also psychology (which was viewed as a part of philosophy in the past).

Much of what we discuss is actually both about practical methods and philosophy.
I've been told that reductionnism is more of a method than or a specific philosophical ism. It has been stated above by Wayfare, I think. I could have missunderstood. That ussually happens.

Is it really an -ism at all?

With eg the discussion of empathy in hermeneutics we have both a discussion about the theory of it (philosophy?) and the practical application (pedagogy, psychology?).
I actually tried to study philosophy at school but it was too theoretical and not very practical. When I told the teacher about it he said that he understood.
What do you think?


"I suggest those definitions have been cooked up by those in a discipline other than philosophy or some well meaning ignorant fool on the internet"
It even said that holism is a part if New age. My understanding is that the terms oneness and pantheism are used in New age. Holistic approach is another term used.
Holism doesn't really describe new age even though it might be related to it in some ways.

We've done the analysis and should now do the synthesis?

I think that you are into something.
We have methods and we have philosophy, right?
That's the same thing with hermeneutics: it is methods and philosophy. It is also psychology (which was viewed as a part of philosophy in the past).

"Music can obviously be very complex but at the same time it expresses simple principles albeit in a highly dynamic and textured way."
That's true. When I read that reductionism can be "the sum can be explained by its parts" I was a bit confused. That can't be what it really means. Is that just a bad definition?

I study philosophy but it is mostly pedagogy (which is also psychology).
complex phenomena should be explained by the simplest underlying principles possible.

When I read that
"complex phenomena should be explained by the simplest underlying principles possible." I was also confused. That doesn't sound linw reductionism. It sounds like "lets beeak down a bigger task into smaller tasks". Sounds like good pedagogy.
What do you think?

Is pedagogy more psychology than philosophy?
It seems to be both at the same time.
What I should say is that I did take a course in Thomas Aquinas. I learned a lot but hylomorphism.
After taking that course I read a little on hermeneutics. I really liked that. It had a lot to do with pedagogy. It felt like it was both philosophy and psychology at the same time. Even linguistics.
What do you experts say?

I have heard about "reductionism vs holism" in psychology and therefore thought about how they must be antonyms.
So when we have "A vs B" A and B do not have to be opposites?

t
We can have an abstract idea of a circle. If we look at 10 circles we might find what is simmilar in all of them. This must be the universal. Abstraction gives us the universal.
You seem to say that I am wrong. Why?

Aquinas wrote this "This is what we mean by abstracting the universal from the particular,..."
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1085.htm#article1

What am I missunderstanding?

; (our) "rationality" seems, btw, only a dependent variable, or spandrel (Gould, Hume). — 180 Proof

What does that mean?

How do you define duty?
If you refrain from doing your duty would you say that it is a sin?

What I do not get is:
Why is music so much about performance. I find that playing music or singing when alone is really great and important to me. I guess being alone is about practising (even if we do not think about music). What do you think?

Prayer is about a relationship, the person(s) praying and God. Then praying alone in a bedroom or cell is a social thing. Thus it would be natural to chant but still people often speak rather than sing at those times. Why is this?

Are you asking about US law?

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_003.htm

In order to constitute a miracle, is it necessary that something exceed the powers and faculty both of invisible and incorporeal, and of visible and corporeal nature? Which is the same as asking whether something can be called miraculous it if surpasses only the forces of visible and corporeal nature and is arduous, unusual and marvelous, even though it does not exceed the powers of invisible and incorporeal nature, i.e., of an angel. According to the doctrine of St. Thomas, the answer seems to be negative. For he teaches that a miracles occurs when something happens beyond the order of all created nature …. However, the same holy doctor teaches that we do not know all the power of created nature, and thus there is such a thing as a miraculum quoad nos, when something is done by a created power unknown to us, beyond the order of created nature which we know …. But we, for the sake of clarity, prefer to say that major miracles exceed the forces of the whole created nature; and minor miracles exceed the power of corporeal and visible nature only.

After reading this I got one question: how do we define the term miracle?

1. God is omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, he will always know and do what is best.

You are saying that God should do what is best and forget about human freedom. Don't you think the best is for us to choose the greatest good rather than God forcing us. If God is love He cannot force us to love. Love is a choice.

Thus
1. God is omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, he will always know what is best for us but not force us to do good.


3. If God always does what is best, he cannot respond to petitions.

Petitions has been said to be a way for us to partake in God's creation process even though all good come from Him. A parent could probably bake a cake better without his children but it is good for the children to be with their father and create with him.

You seem to take fullness of God and make into a wierd syllogism. I would not do this so I can only point to the things I've been told.
I'm looking forward to the person who can come up with a good syllogism in defense of prayer of petitions.

How would one go about degining the term dance in philosophy?


My question pertains more to dance as a social thing. Be it swedish snoa or american foxtrot.
I could right now in this moment go and play a nice piece on my piano. I could right now in this moment walk a bit and thus create a solo dance, ie going for a walk and make that into a dance.
Dance is walking and standing (or something simmilar) made into a dance.
Dancing it seems is taking the movements we do in our daily life and put them together into something interesying (although we may not do all those movements anymore due to industrialism and work conditions).
What do you think?

So we simply but...then we are forced to go deeper into our relationships and activities which can be painful?
What does philosophy say about this?

Please elaborate some more on this.

I would say that Dignity has to do with being put aside or being special. You can even talk about dignified persons.
Dignity could come from the fact that we have imortal souls. Here i am thinking of how Aquinas thought about it. I studied him a bit but not that much.

According to a Youtube video "two concepts of human dignity" there are two ways to look at the Word in catholic tradition. They are used interchangeably.
How do you define human dignity?
Maybe one cannot!

Is the book something to read or just crazy intellectual thought of an author?

it seems that you are refering to us longing for happiness. Doesnt animals also long for happiness? But there is no "animal dignity"
The question is why we are allowed to use animals but never humans.

Most Catholic philosophers/theologians seem to believe that we have "Human dignity" since we are made for something bigger/greater ie Heaven (eternal happiness with The Existence itself).
I wonder how that could be proved with only philosophy?

Why do you think we have human dignity?
Or if you even think so!?

I umderstand that one evidence for our dignity is the ability we when it comes to know right from wrong. Some seem better at it than others.
I say that the natural law is a very Good evidence. We often think about and ponder upon if there is something greater than all this.
Still I am not sure that this is an argument against "using" Another person like you can do with animals.

Oftentimes, it seems that we as humans can see greater purposes for actions and object than animals can.
We can by practice see the full purpose of eating, sex and so on. This could be seem as evidence but I am looking for how professomional philosophers have argued.

How do the famous philosophers define "play"?

I find that play is very much about being here and now. Adults plan and children play. As adult we do both. I mean, some Children plan as they grow older but not like us adult (I am aware of handicapped adults but kan refering to those of normal IQ)
It seems that we can play with our minds.
Why not even call this discussion some sort of play?