It is also my right on a public forum to comment on what you and noble dust articulates. — woodart

I never questioned your right to comment; I don't know where you got that idea.

It is also my right on a public forum to comment on what you and noble dust articulates."
— woodart

I never questioned your right to comment; I don't know where you got that idea. — John

I made that statement as a prologue to my questions. Do you care to answer any of them?

What do your questions have to do with imagination? They're also leading questions. I think you could easily re-frame them as statements.

So, I have in mind the most all-inclusive definitions of logic and reason here. — John

Maybe it's my autodidactic tendencies, but I'm not even sure what this sort of definition of logic and (or?) reason is. Maybe you could elaborate further on that. So anything I might have to say about your following paragraph would depend on a more detailed definition of what you mean here.

I think what you say here really amounts to saying that projections are harmful only when they are not recognized as such. — John

Yeah I suppose that's the same gist.

Unrecognized projections, which become reified as objectifications, make our lives ever poorer, I beleive. — John

Yeah, but even more than objectifications, they become ways of thinking about the world. I'm still trying to tear the idea of God as Angry Judge out of how I view reality. I didn't just objectify a way of thinking about God, I almost ratified the image in my mind, in a way. It becomes part of the thinking process. I think any unconscious or misplaced projection does this.

Are philosophers more insecure than people in general? — woodart

To answer this either in the affirmative or the negative would be to make an unjustified generalization.

Is insecurity covered, many times, by arrogance and obfuscation?

No doubt, sometimes people hide their insecurities by arrogance or obfuscation.

Is arrogance and obfuscation a mask purposely worn and is it dishonest?

I suppose it could be sometimes.

Do the best philosophers know they are insecure and admit they do not know very much?

Tell me who you think are the best philosophers, and then I'll tell you whether I know them well enough to answer that question.

Are some philosophers bullies?

Possibly. Probably. Fucked if I'd know.

Is it hard to make a significant contribution to human knowledge?

It is probably hard or even impossible for most people. It might be easy for some, who knows?

I do not think these are “vague speculations” about philosophy and/or psychology. Nor do I think these are presumptuous and condescending questions to ask. These are honest questions about how philosophers use their imagination. It is not easy to be a philosopher – we ask hard questions.

These questions are only possible to answer, if at all, when they are referred to specific individuals, as far as I can tell. So, their vagueness consists in the fact that they are generalizations. Condescension consists in voicing unjustified assumptions about, or speaking from unjustified assumptions to, people you don't actually know.

I think one of the most unproductive uses of the imagination consists in imagining that you have sufficient knowledge to make presumptuous generalizations about people; whether they are philosophers or otherwise.

Beyond that it's not obvious to me what relevance to the OP your "questions and critiques" have. I think the first step would consist in being honest about how you use your own imagination, before beginning to generalize about how others use theirs.

Maybe it's my autodidactic tendencies, but I'm not even sure what this sort of definition of logic and (or?) reason is. Maybe you could elaborate further on that. So anything I might have to say about your following paragraph would depend on a more detailed definition of what you mean here. — Noble Dust

Think about music for example; there is a logic to, which is to say a reasoning inherent in, melodic and rhythmic movements and harmonic progressions, without a firm grasp of which no amount of brilliant imagination could produce music worth listening to.

Or think about poetry, and the logic or reasoning that lies behind the complex webs of allusion and metaphor that make for good work. In my view much of the best creative work consists in problem solving; that is in, through processes of highly structured reasoning, imagining a problem or asking a question, and then solving the problem or answering the question. I don't think philosophy or religion are any different. All of philosophy and religion arises from the existential problems we find ourselves faced with. These problems have their own deep and subtle logics and cannot be adequately and subtly understood without solid and extensive reasoning.

Think about music for example; there is a logic to, which is to say a reasoning inherent in, melodic and rhythmic movements and harmonic progressions, without a firm grasp of which no amount of brilliant imagination could produce music worth listening to. — John

I'm not sure I fully agree; there is a logic or a reasoning inherent in many forms of music, but part of how music evolves is that the reasoning changes. Compare Mozart with Schoenburg. Each may have used a reasoning faculty to arrive at their music, but they certainly weren't thinking with the same reason per se; the dissonance of Schoenburg would have been completely un-musical to Mozart. Then with Duchamp invading the art world with his "4th dimension" (the idea that an idea can be art), you have artists in general beginning with an idea and letting that be the guiding principle or logic behind the piece. A completely different way of thinking; rather than saying "there's a correct set and an incorrect set of pitches to use here". Chance music, for instance, or Musique Concrete.

in my view much of the best creative work consists in problem solving; that is in imagining a problem or asking a question, and then solving the problem or answering the question. — John

Do you mean that artists consciously try to problem solve, and that that's what making art is? I don't find that to be the case in my own artistic work. For me, conceptual problems come afterwards, mostly. I find the initial process of creation to be kinetic, which I think I mentioned earlier in a different context. This is part of what makes me think of imagination as primary, because for me, I begin with a kinetic connection to an instrument, then through creativity I start constructing a piece, and then towards the end of the process I'll beginning thinking more abstractly about the problems in the piece, and I'll try to "solve" those problems. Sometimes it takes a few hours, sometimes a year or two.

All of philosophy and religion arises from the existential problems we find ourselves faced with. These problems have their own deep and subtle logics and cannot be adequately and subtly understood without solid and extensive reasoning. — John

This helps clarify my position I think. I agree that philosophy, religion, art, even science, at their deepest cores, are interfacing with the same problems, as it were. But I differ, because I think they fundamentally approach the problems with a different set of tools. I guess I use that as a metaphor to say that they use a different mix of the human faculties; not the same mix. I think philosophy is a much more conscious approach, for instance, whereas religion or mysticism are much more "immediate" or immanent approaches; approaches of devotion. Art I consider to be a kinetic approach, at it's best. At the same time, though, I think creativity has a mystical significance. That's why I'm always bringing it up.

I'm not sure I fully agree; there is a logic or a reasoning inherent in many forms of music, but part of how music evolves is that the reasoning changes. — Noble Dust

Yes, I agree there is no permanently fixed logic in music, and it is the part of imagination to create new forms. But usually this proceeds on the basis of a deep understanding of existing conventional forms. I don't rule out the possibility that some modern forms of music, art and poetry, in the absence of such traditional understandings, may be pretty vacuous, either.

I begin with a kinetic connection to an instrument, then through creativity I start constructing a piece, and then towards the end of the process I'll beginning thinking more abstractly about the problems in the piece, and I'll try to "solve" those problems. Sometimes it takes a few hours, sometimes a year or two. — Noble Dust

I can certainly relate to that; but wouldn't you say that kinetic familiarity with a musical instrument is possible only on the foundation of understanding the logic inherent in its structure? I am not denying that some people can do this more or less 'naturally'. I have known good musicians who cannot even read musical notation. They seems to be able to know what to play without knowing why they are playing it. But I would still count that as a kind of implicit somatic or kinetic grasp of the logic of the instrument. I certainly don't confine the ambit of logic to 'dry' processes of reasoning. When I speak of logic or reasoning I am not thinking of predicate calculus or syllogistic logic here!

I think philosophy is a much more conscious approach, for instance, whereas religion or mysticism are much more "immediate" or immanent approaches; approaches of devotion. — Noble Dust

I do agree that there is more rigorous reasoning involved in philosophy (or should be) than religion. I think this is because ideas in philosophy have come to signify very specific things, or range over strictly limited domains. The same is probably true, I would imagine, in theology, though.

Even the non-theologically-minded, yet serious religious devotee, or any important mystic, must be very familiar with the body of ideas that make up their religions. It's not as though they can just imagine whatever they like about their experiences, and communicate that, and expect others to be interested in, or even understand, their imaginings.

What do your questions have to do with imagination? They're also leading questions. I think you could easily re-frame them as statements. — Noble Dust

Some of my comments are statements – some are questions. Imagination is the brush that paints the picture of our ideas. An idea is an image in our minds eye. A mask is traditionally part of a costume, but it can also be a disguise of ones persona. We all use imagination to project our persona, which is like a mask. When I get up in the morning I put on my clothes – my costume. I also put on my persona, my mask for the different “things” I will do throughout the day. I have many hats that I wear. One of the hats that I wear, today, is that of philosopher. I use my imagination when I put it on – don’t we all? Imagination and philosophy are like brother and sister – don’t you agree?

One of the things I notice about philosophers is that they are insecure. I wonder if you agree? I also see arrogance and obfuscation – do you? I think some philosophers use great imagination to construct a mask that obfuscates. What do you think about this idea? A mask or argument that confuses ones companion is dishonest. It lacks honor – don’t you agree?

I think the questions we ask ourselves in philosophy take great imagination and stamina. We ask the hard questions and they are not easy to understand or formulate. The answers are even more difficult – sometimes impossible. It takes courage to be a philosopher and great imagination. I don’t want to make my task harder by confusing myself or someone else. I want to be clear in what I think and say. What do you think?

I can certainly relate to that; but wouldn't you say that kinetic familiarity with a musical instrument is possible only on the foundation of understanding the logic inherent in its structure? — John

Well, in a way; I guess I'm just getting held up by the word "logic". I would say that a kinetic familiarity is based on past kinetic connections, and the resulting ephemeral experience of the music or art which was a positive experience as an artist/listener. So initial kinetic connections that lead to exciting musical possibilities build on themselves, which lead to more and more. So, if you mean that one must rigorously study an art form before becoming a master, then no, I don't agree. I've also known artists of various disciplines that seemed to be "naturals", as cliche as it is. I've also had friends who tried to learn an instrument, because the rest of us were doing it...and they just couldn't keep up. This sort of basic observation is another reason I tend to think of the importance of imagination or creativity. There do seem to be some of us who naturally have it. Why that might be is still a total mystery to me, and not something I try to do philosophy about, at least for now. As for myself, I find myself somewhere in between. I have some formal training, but it seems that that training laid the groundwork for me to be able to not think about it ever again, for the most part. I only use the technical aspects of my training (transcribing notation, identifying complex chord names) when I absolutely have to, which is usually when my band asks me for those things. So as a result, I'm quite slow at completing those tasks.

Yes, I agree there is no permanently fixed logic in music, and it is the part of imagination to create new forms. But usually this proceeds on the basis of a deep understanding of existing conventional forms. — John

This is an important point which I neglected. However, there are still more factors than that. In our modern world, there's the collision of heretofore unconnected musical cultures, where a totally different way of thinking about music cuts through the norm, creating new norms. Steve Reich spent time in Africa, and as a trained drummer, he ingested a wealth of African drumming patterns, which had a profound influence on the "minimalist", modern classical music he wrote and continues to write. Now that hypnotic, rhythmic approach influences even popular music down to the most derivative degree.

I don't rule out the possibility that some modern forms of music, art and poetry, in the absence of such traditional understandings, may be pretty vacuous, either. — John

I agree that those forms are vacuous in a classical sense, which tends to be the sense I agree with generally. But I'm also trying to figure out what the significance of those forms of art is for humanity in general. Even though I don't like the art, there's something so astounding about the emergence of an entire new way of doing art. Tying this strictly back to philosophy, I think there are some very important, prescient truths to be gleaned from this development, even if I don't happen to like the art itself. And I don't think it's so simple as a critique of post-modernism, or nihilism.

I certainly don't confine the ambit of logic to 'dry' processes of reasoning. When I speak of logic or reasoning I am not thinking of predicate calculus or syllogistic logic here! — John

So what is it you're thinking of?? You don't seem to quite define it. But I do feel I'm on the periphery of getting the idea.

The same is probably true, I would imagine, in theology, though. — John

Like philosophy, I suppose, there seems to be so much unnecessary theology. I think theology should bridge the gap between philosophy and religious experience. It's more of an intermediary.

Even the non-theologically-minded, yet serious religious devotee, or any important mystic, must be very familiar with the body of ideas that make up their religions. — John

I'm not so sure this is the case. Certainly some of the mystics were not well read. "Serious religious devotion" is often based on an immediate or immanent experience, like I mentioned. Earlier in life, my more intense religious experiences were exactly that. Now as I become more well-read, those experiences become more rare. This is also partially because I don't have a regular devotion or practice anymore.

It's not as though they can just imagine whatever they like about their experiences, and communicate that, and expect others to be interested in, or even understand, their imaginings. — John

I'm not so sure this covers the breadth of the mystics. But I need to research more of them.

John, I should also mention that another reason I focus on the importance of creativity over craft (or logic, or whatever), is that I find that, especially with art, the innocent experience of a piece of art is the most pure. I can think back to when I encountered new pieces of music that were utterly foreign to me; I didn't have the chops or the understanding to know what was happening, but the immediate, visceral experience of the piece was profound and life changing. The same goes for when I encounter new pieces of art in disciplines that I'm not a practitioner of, like visual art. When I saw Picasso's sculpture exhibit at MoMA, I felt like a child. I felt like I was encountering a new form of reality. I just looked at the colors and the shapes; I was seduced by the whole spectacle of his work. And I have little to no training in understanding visual art. I'm always trying to get back to this innocent state of experiencing and creating art. This experience of art almost shares something with the religious or mystical experience; it's immediate and immanent; it's childlike.

Some of my comments are statements – some are questions. — woodart

But I was referring to your list of questions. They all had question marks after them, but they were leading questions, which means you weren't really asking a question ("how are you today?"), but making an implicit statement ("don't you feel good today?"). A real question leaves room for the responder to answer honestly ("I'm feeling down today"). A leading question suggests an answer that the responder should give ("yes, I do feel good today"). Leading questions are manipulative.

Imagination is the brush that paints the picture of our ideas. — woodart

I like that metaphor.

A mask is traditionally part of a costume, but it can also be a disguise of ones persona. We all use imagination to project our persona, which is like a mask. — woodart

Also a good analogy.

Imagination and philosophy are like brother and sister – don’t you agree? — woodart

I disagree with this analogy - it depends on the philosopher. Russell doesn't exactly fit this description. Perhaps Nietzsche fits it better? It depends. But if you mean the discipline of philosophy itself, regardless of the varying degrees of use of imagination from philosopher to philosopher...like John said, this is a generalization, and hard to say. I even have trouble making a statement about how much imagination "should" be used in philosophy, because of the wide range of thinking that goes into the discipline. For my part, I'm interested in a way or mode of thinking that places creativity as primary, or secondary at the very most. So can this even be called philosophy? This is something I wrestle with; I'm not even sure if I'm a philosopher.

One of the things I notice about philosophers is that they are insecure. I wonder if you agree? I also see arrogance and obfuscation – do you? I think some philosophers use great imagination to construct a mask that obfuscates. What do you think about this idea? A mask or argument that confuses ones companion is dishonest. It lacks honor – don’t you agree? — woodart

I see this in politics and the arts and science as much as anywhere else. I see this anywhere where power and influence are at play. I don't see it more in philosophy than anywhere else. Hell, I see this just as much in the several workplaces I work in.

I think the questions we ask ourselves in philosophy take great imagination and stamina. We ask the hard questions and they are not easy to understand or formulate. The answers are even more difficult – sometimes impossible. It takes courage to be a philosopher and great imagination. I don’t want to make my task harder by confusing myself or someone else. I want to be clear in what I think and say. What do you think? — woodart

I think you're right about this, and that these are some wise thoughts. I'm reading "Dynamics of Faith" by the theologian Paul Tillich right now. He describes "faith" as "ultimate concern". With this definition, everyone necessarily has an ultimate concern; everyone has faith. Unfortunately, all forms of ultimate concern are idolatrous, except the one ultimate concern: God, or the divine. And what's more, ultimate concern for something requires courage, because ultimate concern necessarily involves doubt, of the most appropriate kind. So, if a philosopher finds himself afraid, it's because of his doubt, and his doubt is what gives him courage.

And what's more, ultimate concern for something requires courage, because ultimate concern necessarily involves doubt, of the most appropriate kind. So, if a philosopher finds himself afraid, it's because of his doubt, and his doubt is what gives him courage. — Noble Dust

There's a teaching in Zen called 'great doubt' - 'to follow the Way requires great doubt, great faith and great determination'. I think it's doubt in the sense of throwing everything we think we know into question.

A conscious throwing of everything we know into question, or an experience of it? My experience of doubt (and so, for better or for worse), my interpretation of Tillich is more a sense of existential dread; the fear that nothing is as it seems, and the whole structure is wrong.

I don't really agree with this, although I do see that sort of imaginative thinking as theoretically having some limited use. But I think it also leads to a lot of bad philosophical ideas. P-zombies, for instance, are a misuse of imagination (using it to "give us totally new approaches to [a] question"). It's a bad argument against physicalism, but I'm not so much worried about that as I am worried that it's a misuse of imagination. Imagination is not a mental tool in the same way that logic is. — Noble Dust

I'd say it's a great mental tool. Just try to make your computer be imaginitive and come up with something it's not programmed to do. With things being logical, especially if they are computable, computers can do it likely better than you. Sooner or later, if not now.

Naturally that imagination has to be in the end logical and use reason in order to be useful to philosophy and not all that one can imagine is useful to philosophy. Yet it gives us a method to break from the usual way of looking at things. Something that when successfull we call creativity.

For example with science, there is the great example of science fiction and it's role in technological advances and science itself. Now one can be obstinate here and take the approach that science or technological advance has absolutely nothing to do with science fiction, just look at the scientific experiments, published theories etc. and you will have no reference to science fiction or imagination. Or that usually science fiction writers just use the science and tech they are aware of and fill in the blanks with cool sounding machines.

Yet when you look at the historical events from a broader perspective, there is an evident role.

that's pretty well what I meant.

(Y) pardon my chronic need to clarify unnecessary details.

I'd say it's a great mental tool. Just try to make your computer be imaginitive and come up with something it's not programmed to do. With things being logical, especially if they are computable, computers can do it likely better than you. Sooner or later, if not now. — ssu

Sure. To me, the possibility of a computer creating a more sublime piece of art than a human person ever could is exactly an example of the purest form of nihilism. So, if that's our road, then our road is nothing short of meaningless and total tom-foolery. And sure, this could very well be the case.

Naturally that imagination has to be in the end logical and use reason in order to be useful to philosophy and not all that one can imagine is useful to philosophy. — ssu

Right, and I gave an example (p-zombies) of a creative idea that is not useful to philosophy. But what do you mean that "imagination has to be in the end logical and use reason in order to be useful to philosophy"? Imagination is the basis of the action of creativity; creativity as an action is parallel with logic and reason.

For example with science, there is the great example of science fiction and it's role in technological advances and science itself. Now one can be obstinate here and take the approach that science or technological advance has absolutely nothing to do with science fiction, just look at the scientific experiments, published theories etc. and you will have no reference to science fiction or imagination. Or that usually science fiction writers just use the science and tech they are aware of and fill in the blanks with cool sounding machines.

Yet when you look at the historical events from a broader perspective, there is an evident role. — ssu

Yes, this is an interesting topic of which i'm somewhat aware. How much did science fiction influence the decisions of actual scientists? How much did the creative imagination of fiction writers influence the scientific principles that were later discovered?

Yes, this is an interesting topic of which i'm somewhat aware. How much did science fiction influence the decisions of actual scientists? How much did the creative imagination of fiction writers influence the scientific principles that were later discovered? — Noble Dust

Science is science fiction – or at least it should be considered that way. What is science for? It is a bridge to tomorrow. We are not satisfied with today. Why – because we want something better. Ask yourself – what is the first scientific instrument? It is a club or rock used as a basher. I can’t forget the movie – Quest for Fire – in the beginning an Ape throws a club up in the air. He sees for the first time he can use an object outside of his body to do something. That’s what science is - seeing a connection. It doesn’t have to be real or right – it is an experiment.

Well, why aren’t we satisfied with today? Because, as I am sitting under a banana tree with my buddy, feeling full and happy – he points and says - what’s that? I say – I don’t know, but someone told me it’s a mountain. What’s a mountain? Imagination – it’s actually a drug like heroin. Some addictions are better than others.

Science is our quest for fire. My motto is – beam me up Scotty, I am tired of this planet.

If you want to know the thruth, you have to ask a question.

Or watch tv.

I agree that those forms are vacuous in a classical sense, which tends to be the sense I agree with generally. But I'm also trying to figure out what the significance of those forms of art is for humanity in general. Even though I don't like the art, there's something so astounding about the emergence of an entire new way of doing art. Tying this strictly back to philosophy, I think there are some very important, prescient truths to be gleaned from this development, even if I don't happen to like the art itself. And I don't think it's so simple as a critique of post-modernism, or nihilism. — Noble Dust

Apologies for my delayed response; I've been somewhat preoccupied with other things.

Yes, I think modern forms are often "vacuous in a classical sense", at least insofar as they embody a rejection of classical forms. But I didn't mean to suggest that I think that if they reject classical forms they are therefore necessarily vacuous per se.

I actually think that there is a great deal of creatively and spiritually rich modern art, literature and music, which has not been developed "under the aegis of tutelage". Such works are not beholden to any religious tradition, and are none the poorer for all that, in my opinion. Personally, as much as I admire the great classical artists, poets and composers, I respond more to modern works. I think the "important truths' to be found in great modern works are existential and phenomenological truths, rather than purportedly metaphysical or ontological truths. I follow Kant in thinking that much of the great ancient, and classical, philosophy is naive, insofar as it is pre-critical.

If works are nihilistic, then they are still labouring under the influence (as a negative reaction) of the very traditions they might purport to be free from. So I certainly agree with you that it's not "so simple as a critique of post-modernism, or nihilism".

From where does the imagination originate?

I'm late for the discussion, but here is my two cents anyways.
The 'test of imagination', as Chesterton calls it, is useful for determining if a thing or event is logically possible or not: If you can imagine it, then it is logically possible; if not, then not. E.g. I can imagine a unicorn; I cannot imagine a triangle with four sides.