I have to smile. Inside your head is quivering meat, the way inside an engine is quivering metal. I am more a psychologist than an engineer, and psychology is not a science because it operates exactly in the contradiction you just neatly expressed there. It turns out that the the view of the inside of one's own head that one gets is a poor one at best. — unenlightened

You've jumped to a lot of conclusions just based on my acknowledgement that I was uncertain I was correct about what I wrote. I wasn't denying the value of my internal experience. I have claims to being a psychologist also - 3 years in college and 50 years of paying attention. Yes, psychology is a science. And the view one get's from inside one's head is the only view one gets.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher — Artemis

I've been thinking about this issue and your post set me thinking again. I have not been satisfied with my answers to why philosophy is different than science. Thinking about a response to your post, it struck me - When science broke off from philosophy, it lost all the parts of it where you could be wrong. Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact. This ties in with my oft repeated refrain - metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful.

Yes, of course, I know you and most of the others here disagree strongly. Maybe I should start a new thread.

So, there are some Christian philosophers who are saying that there are very basic arational beliefs that support Christian conclusions. This would mean that the statements "This is a hand," and "God exists," are equivalent, neither require a justification in that they are arational. I don't see this as a correct interpretation of what Wittgenstein is putting forward in OC. — Sam26

I don't know what Wittgenstein said or meant, but I think this approach provides a framework for a valid belief in God. If I have experienced God directly, I believe he exists. You have not, so you don't.

the required justification for the existence of God — Sam26

There is no required justification for the existence of God.

He had this analogy of philosophy as the engine of language idling. — unenlightened

I like this a lot.

A good engineer probably does not need the manual very often, does not need the advice of his fellows very often, but he does not despise or totally ignore these things either. — unenlightened

Just to be clear, it seems like you are saying that an engineer needing a manual and help from others is analogous with someone learning philosophy needing philosophical readings. Is that correct? I don't think that is an apt analogy. As I've noted in this thread, science and engineering are different from philosophy. There are specific standards that can be applied and a specific body of knowledge is required. Since science split off from philosophy, what's left are subjects that exist inside people's minds. I am as likely to know what is going on inside my mind as anyone else.

As I wrote that ,I wondered, do I really believe the things I've just written. I'm not sure. I guess we'll see.

Silent philosophy is a philosophy where the underlying truth of an inanimate substance gives birth to a new sense of life within man. — Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury

This sounds like meditative practice. Awareness.

Welcome to the forum.

You'll need to read the whole essay I linked to to get a better sense of what I'm talking about. — baker

I didn't read all of it, but I read about four pages. As I noted in my response, the idea of bare attention is interesting. It's an issue that comes up in the Tao Te Ching. What does it mean to experience the Tao? Lao Tzu writes about the sage "embracing" the Tao. I've always said "experiencing the Tao directly," which isn't very satisfying for the reasons the author of your link notes. It seems obvious that it's not possible to experience it directly, so what does the sage do and what can I do?

I don't think that undermines the meaning or value of Kafka's quote. I think his take is more in line with Lao Tzu's. I see Taoism as much more down-to-earth than many forms of Buddhism. It is intended for practical purposes, e.g. ruling a county. It isn't aimed at enlightenment so much as getting down to work.

So, where does that leave me? I don't know. Your comment has allowed me to recognize a hole in my understanding. I always knew it was there, but I waved my arms instead of digging in. Thanks for your help.

It should be noted that the lines you quote from Kafka are half of aphorism #104, the last of the series titled Reflections On Sin, Pain, Hope, And True Way. — Paine

I had never heard of this book. I found this link to a pdf version on the web:

https://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/KafkaKierkegaardBible/AphorismsFranzKafkatransJoyceCrick.pdf

I'll spend some time with it. I appreciate the information.

Whatever "doing philosophy" may be, texts that strive to be more than a list of self-sufficient explanations need to live together in a certain way to become what they are talking about. I suppose one could look at that element in a purely instrumental fashion but there is more to it than that. — Paine

I am a fan of aphorisms. In presentation at least, the Tao Te Ching, a book that has had a strong influence on my understanding of the world, is very aphoristic. I'll read through Kafka's text and see if I have anything else to say.

Thanks.

I presented then my position, very clearly and with a lot of details and references. Which, as it seems, you have obviously ignored, even if it shows a thorough work, which obviously takes some time to compile, as well as a considerable interest in your topic. — Alkis Piskas

Now, now. Don't be tetchy. Or condescending for that matter. If you're not willing to deal with me misunderstanding sometimes, you are not obligated to respond, although I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

You need not be an idealist to use Math or a physicalist to use Physics. "Using" and "being" are totally different kind of things. There may be a connection between them, but only sometimes, not always. — Alkis Piskas

I guess I'm confused. You agree with me that metaphysical positions have no truth value, but then it seems like you say that such a position, e.g. idealism, physicalism, realism..., reflects an actual state of being.

I think a pragmatist would say there is no difference between using and being. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist.

What do you suppose is the relation between this thread and ↪T Clark's You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher? — Banno

Do you think God should read philosophy too? He already has to read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, all those other religious documents, and the Wall Street Journal.

This is called the Hard Problem of Umpiring which leads us to the Blindspot of Sport. — Tom Storm

I think you've opened up the field of sports philosophy with your new insights.

Of philosophical interest might be why we strive for these objective measures of human performance. And why is it no surprise that the rationalising Greeks and industrialising English seem to have led the way in the invention of formal sport? — apokrisis

Watching children and thinking of myself when I was one, this starts early. Making up rules for everything. Arguing about how to apply them. Arguing about measurements. Arguing about everything. I wonder if it's something built in like language.

If I don't know if it's true, then why shouldn't I say it? — GraveItty

I have no response to this.

Do you agree that energy is advancing-power? — Varde

In physics, power is energy used per unit time. A watt is one joule/sec.

Why shouldn't I say that? — GraveItty

Because you don't know if it's true, you just think it must be true. You haven't indicated you have any specific scientific knowledge about whether memory includes comparison. I infer that you don't.

Football is different, except for interference calls! — jgill

Yes, there is always some interpretation. There are rules and referees and umpires to judge how they apply and if they are being followed. The ump at the plate determines whether the runner is safe or tagged out.

You are discussing the details of how memory must work without knowing what science already knows about how it does work.
8m
— T Clark

Where did I say that? Again, you put the words into my thread. — GraveItty

You said this:

Our memory doesn't make use of comparison. — GraveItty

That's what you say. Of course there is. Introspection for example is non-scientific. Even philosophical. Besides, why should science not be included in philosophy? They were a whole once. I can't help it that you have no understanding of it... No offense... — GraveItty

You are discussing the details of how memory must work without knowing what science already knows about how it does work.

Whenever the Olympics come around, I bring out my diatribe about which sports should not be included. Here's Clark's rule - If I can't figure out who won without being told, it doesn't belong. Examples of things I will allow:

• Football (soccer)
• Basketball
• Swimming
• Track and field
• Archery.

Examples of things I won't allow:

• Ice dancing
• Figure skating
• Gymnastics
• Diving
• Synchronized swimming.

No one from the International Olympics Committee has called asking my opinion yet.

I'm not looking for a scientific explanation. I already have one. — GraveItty

No one has anything but a preliminary understanding of how memory and consciousness work. Trying to do the philosophy without adequate understanding of the mechanics won't work.

I was about to submit a discussion post called "Can consciousness be simulated" but I saw that a post with the same exact name and pretty much the same content was made 2 years ago.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6539/can-consciousness-be-simulated/p4 — Flaw

Consciousness and what they call the hard problem gets discussed here a lot. No reason not to do it again. As for the earlier post with the same name, at two years, the statute of limitations has definitely run out.

I have found the subject frustrating enough that I usually don't participate in consciousness discussions. One suggestion - define the terms you mean to use well. Good luck.

Welcome to the forum.

How many Big Macs need to be eaten per annum in order to maintain [corporate-state capitalism]? — 180 Proof

My standard - one Big Mac, one Quarter Pounder with Cheese, and large fries once a month. No drink.

If I see a face, I don't compare it to a stored memory and (consciously or unconsciously) to the memory of the face I have. How could it be like this? If I compare them, and see that they are the same then, well, how can I remember I have seen the face before? — GraveItty

I don't think understanding how the brain or consciousness works is a matter for logic or seems-to-me philosophy. It's a matter of psychology, cognitive science.

As I said back then, I find it frustrating that the internet is full of allegorical interpretations of this poem, the hawk representing the Nazis or violent destructive humanity, for example. But it's not an allegory. I find myself wondering if the people who interpet it that way have ever seen a hawk before. Probably what's happening is that with the wider exposure to literary and film and art criticism that's been enabled by the internet, bad interpretations abound, with some folks apparently thinking that a non-allegorical interpretation of any work of art is simple-minded. — jamalrob

I like the poem a lot. It's very sensual. As you note - it says what it means and it means what it says. Nothing hidden here. Not an allegory.

I have also been frustrated, and often amused, by interpretations of Robert Frost poems. One in particular I remember was an interpretation of a poem written in 1915 that was identified as an example of Frost's proto-postmodernism. And there was the interpretation of "A Dust of Snow" in which the author referenced "hemlock" as a symbol for death, unaware that the "hemlock" Frost was referring to was a North American evergreen, not a toxic bush used for making poison.

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, — Tolkien

I do have some sympathy for digging into the language of a poem looking for deeper meanings. I remember an interpretation of Frost's "Wild Grapes" that identified and explained some of Frost's allusions to Greek myths. It added depth and perspective without changing my basic understanding of the poem.

Thanks. I hadn't watched it in a long time.

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". — baker

As I wrote in my previous post, I don't remember hearing the term "bare attention" before. Thinking about it, I can see that it could be a useful way of thinking about these issues.

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". A very popular term in popular "Eastern" spirituality, but highly controversial within the actual Eastern traditions themselves. See the passage I quote above from Buddhism. — baker

Here is some of the text about Buddha you quoted:

So it's important to understand that there's no such thing as bare attention in the practice of the Buddha's teachings. Instead of trying to create an unconditioned form of attention, the practice tries to create a set of skillful conditions to shape and direct the act of attention to make it appropriate: truly healing, truly leading to the end of suffering and stress. Once these conditions are well developed, the Buddha promises that they will serve you well — even past the moment of Awakening, all the way to your very last death.

I don't remember ever hearing the term "bare attention" before. Beyond that, I don't see how anything written here contradicts what I've written. All of the posts in this discussion have been painted with a pretty broad brush. There's plenty of room for dotting "t"s and crossing "i"s and working out the details.

I think the following is the essence of what we're talking about and Clark declares his preference.

I clarified my understanding of the relationship between awareness and rationality. For me, awareness comes first.
— T Clark — praxis

Yes. Thanks.

Conclusion: One cannot be both physicalist and dualist or spiritualist at the same time. In other words, one cannot say that everything is physical (matter, body) and also that that there are things that are not physical (mind, soul, spirit) at the same time. It is like saying that sometimes I believe I am only a body and other times I believe that I am something more than a body (i.e. there's a non-physical part in me). Of course, one can believe both, but then he is in conflict! — Alkis Piskas

For me, and for Collingwood, a metaphysical position is not a belief. It is not true or false. It has no truth value. It is a choice, one that depends on a particular situation. So, yes, I can be both a physicalist and idealist at the same time. I can use mathematics (idealism) to address questions in physics (physicalism).

You might have made ↪tim wood the happiest man in the Bay State. — Mww

@tim wood is the one who steered me to Collingwood. I've given him credit many times. Thanks for doing it again.

Can't solve every problem in every post. — Srap Tasmaner

Thanks for your input.

As I wrote before, this has been a really helpful, interesting, and eye-opening discussion for me.

"Intellectual", that's quite a funny word. Can be used as praise, as an insult or even neutral sounding.

As far as I can see everybody is an intellectual, literally. Unless they're in a coma. — Manuel

When I called myself an intellectual, I gave a specific definition of what I meant by that to avoid any confusion. As I noted, calling myself an intellectual "doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at."

An intellectual is a person who "engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection to advance discussions of academic subjects."

So, you are in part anti-intellectual, because you reject the need for research. You do fulfill the rest of the criteria to a certain degree. — Artemis

Hmmm... ok. Maybe... Actually, I don't reject the need for research. I've just done my research in non-philosophical-standard places. I think my 30 years as an engineer and my life-long interest in science are a big part of the foundation of my philosophical understanding.

This is just "looking where the light is best", isn't it? — Srap Tasmaner

I like this. Good, catchy, rhetoric. I will keep it for future use.

Cornel West does claim that there is benefit to studying the great minds of the past, and makes that claim exactly in the context of a critique of the current state of academia. — Srap Tasmaner

I will read West's article.

The sentence that I've bolded here: maybe you can see that it's mistaken, if you think about the difference between, on one hand, being unknowingly influenced, and on the other hand, reading the influential thinkers to understand how you and others are being influenced — jamalrob

That makes sense.

I suggest you read the short opinion piece by West that I quoted above — jamalrob

I will.

He implies that what might appear as the "decolonizing" of education has more to do with a utilitarian anti-intellectualism in the wider society. I think it's fair to say that there is more than a hint of this in your OP. — jamalrob

I don't think I'm anti-intellectual at all. I live in my intellect. Everything good I've ever written on the forum comes from my intellect, reason, resting on a foundation of experience and awareness. I think there's a good case to be made that western philosophy is founded on distrust of experience and awareness.

I've thought of a couple of other things I've gotten from this discussion:

• It helped me realize how deeply pragmatic my philosophy is. How much I use it in my daily life.
• Related to that, it made me realize how much my understanding of philosophy is influenced by my 30 years as an engineer.

Here's another angle. I think you've said a couple of times that you're seeking the insights of people here who you respect. So why not seek the insights of the people who have dedicated their lives to thinking things through? — jamalrob

As much as my snarky tone may have covered it up, this gets to the heart of my OP. I have been diddling around with reading more pragmatism - James, Dewey, Pierce. I'll push myself a bit harder.

This thread has been fun, educational, and a bit humbling. Here are some things I got from it:

• I clarified my understanding of the relationship between awareness and rationality. For me, awareness comes first.
• I was surprised at how passionate people are about this. If I'd thought about it more, I hope I would have been more diplomatic.
• I realized how much my way of seeing things is probably an outlier on the normal distribution of philosophical thought.
• I've resolved to more mature and less smarty-pants in my posts. Ha, ha, ha... Just kidding.

I appreciate everyone's input.

You offered T Clark one of the standards for being a professional academic philosopher, but there's clearly room for doubt that this is the sort of standard he was asking for, and what Cornel West suggests here might be closer to the mark, something that might be pursued by academic institutions but that, West says here categorically, is not. — Srap Tasmaner

...Yes, I think. I like the idea of soul-forming education.

This whole discussion might have benefited from distinguishing two issues: T Clark's regularly avowed discomfort with the Western philosophical tradition, and the professionalization of philosophy in academic institutions. — Srap Tasmaner

Good point.

Mathematics may not require expensive research facilities (no large hadron colliders needed) or hordes of grad students to do the grunt work of research, but to do original work requires a tremendous amount of quite specialized education. Is the same true of philosophy? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think so, at least once you get past logic.

Which is itself, just daydreaming. Even if not often done, it is done nonetheless, and serves as a reference and fundamental ground for philosophy itself. — Mww

Yes. I strongly agree with this. I appreciate your comment.

there’s no crying in metaphysics. — Mww

But a lot of whining.