Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

Thinking/thought may not live up to the hype surrounding it or am I missing something? What if it turns out to be disappointingly simple, as simple as peeing for instance?

From my perspective, you are missing something. Think about it. What distinguishes a trivial unknown from a magnificent unknown? It is not within the phenomena themselves, it is in the knowing of the phenomena. So the significance of a mystery lies in the knowing of it; knowing is the significance.

Time again to let thought speak for itself. — Pantagruel

It always has, can’t escape it. The early 20th century OLP knuckleheads were the first to seriously degrade the significance of it, finding it measurably easier to critique what’s said, it being right there for all to witness, rather than the thought from which it came, which only one can.....while missing the irony in doing it.

But those guys, thankfully, are the current philosophical artifact, hopefully soon to be joined by those who weren’t happy with the obscurity of human though, deciding it worth being listed in peer-reviewed publications by writing on something even more obscure.....consciousness. Again, only by drowning in the same irony.

It took the better part of two millennia to get from the first great thinker to the second. For the third to come about anytime soon.....ehhhh, not holding my breath. Still, the advancements in science proper may well provide him the message in the next Critique, which....ironically enough.....may well be that science cannot tell us what we want to know regarding the absolute primacy of human thought.

......we have elevated it too far; that in so doing, something has been lost. — Pantagruel

Yep. Just like that.

My thoughts, metaphysically speaking for themselves.

We return to that pesky word, "metaphysics", which is now more obscure than it was when it worked on by Aristotle, not that he used the term itself. The historical context may help explain why philosophy sometimes looks lost.

Aristotle has in mind the type of work that allows you to answer questions such as "what is a house?". It was assumed that this could be done: to pick out properties of the mind-independent world and say "that is a house".

But in the 17th century that all changed with the rise of modern science. What's a house is extremely complicated and subtle, so we dropped such high ambitions to ask questions more pertinent to the faculties we have that can actually solve some of the problems in the world, say the position of the planet or gravity.

I don't think we can go back and try to develop extremely complex mental constructions as a basis for philosophy as it often confuses the faculties of the mind with the world itself. Not trivial . This does not entail scientism at all, but it does entail trying to develop the thoughts of many of the classic figures, as they already lay the groundwork for many issues that could have a solution.

So Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others all have plenty of stuff that needs correction and amplification, in my view. To start from zero is possible, but it ignores a large part of what's important in this Western tradition, which is a continued dialogue with its figures, even if it's only one of them.

science cannot tell us what we want to know regarding the absolute primacy of human thought. — Mww

:up:

So Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others all have plenty of stuff that needs correction and amplification, in my view. To start from zero is possible, but it ignores a large part of what's important in this Western tradition, which is a continued dialogue with its figures, even if it's only one of them. — Manuel

Yes, I have in mind a rediscovery of the wonder that these thinkers experienced in their own time, realizing that, fundamentally, that the starry skies above and the moral law within are still that.

What is the philosophical project? — Pantagruel

It struck me recently that the philosophical project, at least my philosophical project, is about awareness. Western philosophy focuses more on awareness of intellectual process and reason while eastern philosophies take on a broader range. As Socrates is supposed to have said, it's all about examining our lives.

I think that's an idiosyncratic view, but I don't really see it being in conflict with the one you've described.

It struck me recently that the philosophical project, at least my philosophical project, is about awareness. Western philosophy focuses more on awareness of intellectual process and reason while eastern philosophies take on a broader range. As Socrates is supposed to have said, it's all about examining our lives.

I think that's an idiosyncratic view, but I don't really see it being in conflict with the one you've described. — T Clark

:100:

To me, awareness is the reward, result, or payoff. And there are other paths to awareness than the philosophical project; which I think has the feature or benefit that it strives for clarity and communicability. Perhaps the significance is that it is a kind of "objectification."

And there are other paths to awareness than the philosophical project — Pantagruel

Yes, I agree.

I think has the feature or benefit that it strives for clarity and communicability. Perhaps the significance is that it is a kind of "objectification. — Pantagruel

I agree with this too. I tend to approach the world through my intellect and I think that is where I am most self-aware. I value clarity and communicability very highly. Objectification is the way we intellectuals examine our lives. Once we've done that, we can pick it up, turn it and twist it, and look at it from all sides. There are shortcomings to this way of doing things, but it has a lot of power.

My hypothesis is that the philosophical project as such is, at its heart, metaphysical. Fichte says that. "To proceed beyond the facts...to go beyond experience as a whole...this is philosophy, and nothing else." — Pantagruel

I agree. Aristotle referred to what we now call "Metaphysics", as "First Philosophy". But, for some on this forum Metaphysics is a four-letter word. And it may be true that some people will justify their out-of-bounds speculations under the pretense of merely doing metaphysics. But that's the risk we take for allowing freedom of thought. In a free society, we have to tolerate Neo-Nazis, even if we don't like what they say. Without freedom of thought, there would be no creativity, no progress. However, the free exchange of ideas must be funneled through a skeptical filter to remove the BS & cons. Yes, that's censorship, so even the skeptics must be subject to skeptical filtering.

For good practical reasons, Modern Science has constructed a restrictive box to contain its own speculations. Physics is limited to the study of details of the material world of the senses. But philosophy has goals that are not limited to pragmatic real-world results. With logic & imagination, it goes beyond the specific things of the world to reason-out general & universal principles. Even Physics makes use of unprovable generalities, such as natural laws, in order to make accurate predictions of physical behaviors. But those "normative rules" themselves must be accepted as "self-evident". We don't discover natural laws by dissecting Nature, but by viewing it as an integrated (whole) system. This approach is not necessarily super-natural, but it is Holistic (another four letter word for those who fear thinking outside Pandora's box). :smile:


Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "things after the ones about the natural world"; Latin: Metaphysica[1]) is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that is sometimes referred to as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology, in English. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics.
It is a compilation of various texts treating abstract subjects, notably Being, different kinds of causation, form and matter, the existence of mathematical objects and the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)

This approach is not necessarily super-natural, but it is Holistic (another four letter word for those who fear thinking outside Pandora's box). — Gnomon

:up:

Systems-centric is another way to characterize it: holism is one of the key characteristics of complex emergent systems. In this guise, it can form the focus of a legitimate paradigm shift, rather than just being a dirty word. :rofl:

As far as I can tell @schopenhauer1 is right on the money. Check out his thread on pessimism (we're passive users of our bodies and ... minds).

:ok:

read a lot of non-contemporary philosophy, and a lot of out outlier material, Mannheim, Scheler, Laszlo. I also frequently revisit seminal and great works, Whitehead, Bergson, Fichte, Aristotle, Marx. I try to cover as much ground as humanly possible, philosophy, science, anthropology, sociology, political theory. To what end? — Pantagruel

As someone who is here mainly to see what he may have missed in not reading philosophy what do you think you have gained from all this reading? What were or are you looking for? If it's awareness... what does that mean in practice?

I mean, life is just layers of experience. I see books as concentrated condensations of experience. I feel like by building up more and more contexts of understanding, new types of possibilities will open up. After all, our understanding can only advance along the lines of our conceptualized goals.

I feel like by building up more and more contexts of understanding, new types of possibilities will open up. — Pantagruel

And have they opened up? Can you share an example?

As someone who is here mainly to see what he may have missed in not reading philosophy what do you think you have gained from all this reading? What were or are you looking for? If it's awareness... what does that mean in practice? — Tom Storm

If your main exposure to science has been through physics and chemistry , then I would suggest that that there are two generations of philosophical theory that have moved beyond the limits of these sciences. Put differently. these philosophers have peered into their crystal ball and produced sketches of what future sciences will look like. On the other hand, if your acquaintance with science extends beyond physics to include the new extended synthesis in biology, predictive processing and enactive , embodied approaches in cognitive science, the. I’d say that you’re not missing much by avoiding philosophy. There’s only a small handful of philosophers who have ventured into territory beyond these newer sciences, and most of them consider themselves to be scientists as well as philosophers.

And have they opened up? Can you share an example? — Tom Storm

It is about conceptualizing a goal-state, which is I think what we are talking about when we discuss the nature of the philosophical project. That is the current topic of the section I'm reading also. For me, that's a good example of re-integrating philosophical practice.

Interesting. Thanks. I kind of missed any exposure to science too, so there's no hope for me.

Sorry, not trying to be a pain in the arse, but I'm no clearer. What is conceptualizing a goal-state? Outside of an abstract, can you provide an example of how this might work in 'real life'? :smile:

↪Joshs Interesting. Thanks. I kind of missed any exposure to science too, so there's no hope for me — Tom Storm

I consider personality theory and models of psychopathology to count as science. They had more impact on me than any other science.

:up:

As someone who is here mainly to see what he may have missed in not reading philosophy what do you think you have gained from all this reading? What were or are you looking for? If it's awareness... what does that mean in practice? — Tom Storm

I, like you, have not spent a lot of time reading philosophy. I even started a thread called "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher." Even so, I have an experience that might be relevant.

As I've said many times, much of my interest in philosophy came from the same place that my attraction to engineering did. I don't know exactly what to call it - a temperamental curiosity. A desire to mess around with things and see how they fit together. During my engineering career, I became aware of a need to understand how I know the things I do, how certain I am. Engineers also need a strong instinct for practicality, pragmatism. Solving problems is what we do.

The forum and a couple of other similar ones are the first places I tried to do any formalish philosophy. That's not counting the two courses I took in college in the 1970s, which I didn't like at all. On the forum I found myself drawn to discussions of metaphysics and epistemology. About five years ago I started a thread called "An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics." The first responding post on that thread was from @tim wood. He recommended "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood.

I got the book. It's a bit dense and he uses some language different from what I was familiar with, but I was immediately struck. He was asking the same questions I was asking myself. His answers made sense and they gave me language to talk about those issues. I didn't agree with everything he wrote, but then I had to dig and figure out why I didn't. It also gave me a foundation on which I could build my understanding and my arguments. Now when I talk about metaphysics, I have confidence my way of seeing things is not alien to the kinds of philosophy everyone else is writing about, even if we disagree with each other. Whether or not it's a legitimate reason, I think having his name as a reference for some of my ideas adds legitimacy to my arguments in some people's eyes.

@Tom Storm

So you won't be confused - I deleted the text below from the post after I first posted it because I don't think it's relevant.

I started to be interested in eastern philosophies about 30 years ago. I started out with Alan Watts and finally came to the Tao Te Ching, where I immediately came to feel at home. For me, the wisdom in the Tao Te Ching is the most pragmatic, clear-eyed philosophy there is. It's philosophical engineering. — T Clark

Thanks. Always good to hear from people about practical experiences. I've been reading the Tao Te Ching thanks to you and although I don't know what it all means, I feel like I sometimes have an intuitive feel for it. I have the Ursula Le Guin version, but I do have access to the Mitchell. There is something... captivating about it.

When someone says something like philosophy is -

about conceptualizing a goal-state — Pantagruel

I am curious how that actually looks outside of abstractions.

I feel like I sometimes have an intuitive feel for it. — Tom Storm

For me, the intuitive feel is what it's all about.

What distinguishes a trivial unknown from a magnificent unknown? — Pantagruel

The human mind that will perceive it once it's known is what will MAKE it magnificent. The difference the expectation; that is what separates trivial from magnificent. The same thing will sound trivial to some, and magnificent to others.

Some humans who hear or think of a certain thing, like names of "Aristotle" and "Socrates" become woozy, and they swoon because they are washed over with the feeling of being near to some magnificence. To some others, the same things will be understood easier, without prejudice, and mainly without the magnificence part.

The magnificence comes in as an expectation to something magnificent for those who expect magnificence. To the rest, this feeling of magnificence observed in others is viewed on one part as snobbery, on the other part as pretense, on the third part as bias.

This does not take away from the fact that those who see magnificence in what they want to see it in, are honest, and without pretense. They truly feel this magnificence.

I am curious how that actually looks outside of abstractions. — Tom Storm

It isn't an abstraction at all, is it? It's easy enough to talk about concrete goals, but the whole issue is to what extent are idealizations susceptible of concrete realization? Do we limit our objectives based upon the availability of material means? Or do we aim to synthesize something novel? Whatever the case, it is something that we constantly do, to whatever extent we are consciously aware of it.

I'm not trying to be a smart arse, it's a genuine question - can you provide an example of something in life that has been illuminated or enhanced by the type of philosophical thinking I think you are referring to?

It isn't an abstraction at all, is it? — Pantagruel

Not really. I don't see my life that way.

It's easy enough to talk about concrete goals, but the whole issue is to what extent are idealizations susceptible of concrete realization? — Pantagruel

Not sure it is that easy as you have been unable to do it so far. :wink: I'm not talking about concrete goals. Just goals. Concrete is to goals what absolute is to truth.

I'll give you an example.

A very helpful idea I encountered around 30 years ago was from Albert Ellis, a psychologist, influenced by the Stoics. He said - "You have considerable power to construct self-helping thoughts, feelings and actions as well as to construct self-defeating behaviors. You have the ability, if you use it, to choose healthy instead of unhealthy thinking, feeling and acting.” That idea changed how I deal with others and how I deal with any information I come upon.

A very helpful idea I encountered around 30 years ago was from Albert Ellis, a psychologist, influenced by the Stoics. He said - "You have considerable power to construct self-helping thoughts, feelings and actions as well as to construct self-defeating behaviors. You have the ability, if you use it, to choose healthy instead of unhealthy thinking, feeling and acting.” That idea changed how I deal with others and how I deal with any information I come upon. — Tom Storm

Similarly, I feel that my pursuit of abstract ideals resonates with my actual behaviours, and vice versa.