So for example, a hypothesis is that there are certain patterns or ratios in music that we find especially pleasing. Science maybe able to identify these characteristics.

And if you have any idea how knowledge of our glands and biochemicals could inform our knowledge of emotions, there are many people who would be very interested to speak with you, maybe even offer you money for your insights — Pattern-chaser

I'm no expert but adrenaline is the fight/flight chemical, dopamine the reward chemical. There is quite a science to it I believe.

Fundamentally I think science is about logic and logic is applicable to everything (the world is logical and humans are logical).

humans are logical — Devans99

I beg to differ. We are capable, on occasion, of logical and rational behaviour, but you don't need me to provide a host of examples of humans not behaving so. I think we've taken this exchange as far as it can usefully go. Do you agree?

I would just add that when human are not behaving logically, they are behaving emotionally. But emotions themselves are 'logical' - they are signals like fear or love from the more primitive parts of our mind to the conscious mind and they can be analysed logically.

Ok, here’s a small example from chapter 56:

Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.

Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity.

Translated (very liberally) to read as advice on writing (philosophy or otherwise):
No need to shout or argue. More words count less. Don’t always trust your eyes and appearances. Words can be cutting, be careful. Know yourself, your faults most of all, for that’s like fertilizer. Shine the light on the subject matter, not yourself. Don’t write to impress, do so to express... and hopefully something beyond merely yourself...

Just a quick example. Eventually I hope to learn to follow its path. :blush:

:up: Thanks for that! :smile: Interesting... :chin:

[I'm a Gaian Daoist, so the TTC is close to my heart.]

The "act" of philosophy was something I tried to touch on in another thread. It's all well and good to have a "truth", but how does one live with it?

I'm a Nietzschean, so I don't care much about the "truth". If I need to think about that, I'll think scientifically, but that's not usually why I'm thinking. And Devans99's mechanistic answers, although I more or less agree with them, are totally charmless. It's hard to think of those answers as informing a course of action. One of the ways Nietzsche described philosophers of the future was as "experimenters". And that seems good to me. Why not experiment with ways of living? Western Civ is dying anyway, and maybe the seed I plant will evolve into a culture. I don't think human knowledge is worth much, except as a tool for power (it is true to the extent it works). All there is to me in life is my biological functions: consume resources, protect myself, procreate and raise the young. I've taken each of these things a little farther, eg "raise the young" includes trying to establish traditions for my family/clan.

I pretty much leave people alone to their business. I don't care if they agree with me unless I need them to. Anyway, that's what philosophy is to me: given death, what should my life be?

Philosophy is buggery

It seems simple to me. Looking at the history of philosophy, I see two options when it comes to the practice of philosophy: the speculative and analytical. The former proceeds by dialectical reasoning, the latter by way of methodological proof.

I'm a Nietzschean, so I don't care much about the "truth".  — yupamiralda

Yes, Neitsche's philosophic spirit is far superior to the soulless analytical garbage pervading present day philosophy. His aphoristic style is particularly intriguing since it prevents him from falling into the temptation of system building. The aphoristic style also gives him the versatility to easily attack all topics from all angles, putting perspectivism into action.

Here's a link to an article I just found on Aeon magazine, entitled "Philosophical writing should read like a letter". It seemed relevant to this discussion, so here it is: link

Just read. Most relevant. Good stuff, in my amateur opinion. Succinctly and clearly written essay which proposes to rinse some of the starch out of philosophy writing. And open it up once again to varied literary approaches which are part of the tradition. That is, without dumbing it down to gain a wider audience. Here’s some highlights (imho) from the article:

Genre considerations intensify the question of what should organise philosophical writing: dialogue, treatise, aphorism, essay, professional article and monograph, fragment, autobiography. And if one’s sensibility is more inclusive, letters, manifestos and interviews also become possibilities. No genre is fully scripted, however, hence the need to also consider logical-rhetorical operations: modus ponens, irony, transcendental arguments, allegory, images, analogies, examples, quotations, translation, even voice, a distinctive way of being there and for the reader. So much seems to count when we answer for how we write...

....Texts and readers do not meet in a vacuum, however. I thus wonder: how does one also address prevailing contextual forces, from ethno-nationalisms to white supremacy to the commodification of higher education? It is tempting to imagine a text without footnotes, as if they were ornaments. But in a period so averse to the rigours of knowledge, and so ahistorical in its feel for the truths we have, why not underscore the contested history of a thought, if only to insist: thought is work, the results fragile, and there will be disagreements. Clarity poses another question, and a particular challenge for philosophy, which is not underwritten by experiments. Instead, its ‘results’ are won (or lost) in the presentation. Moreover, philosophical conclusions do not remain philosophical if freed from the path that led to them. ‘God exists’ says one thing in prayer and something else at the close of a proof. Experts often are asked to share their results without showing their work. But showing one’s work is very much the work of philosophy. Can one do so and reach beyond the academy?

(Info on author: John Lysaker is William R Kenan professor of philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta, where he also serves as chair of the philosophy department. His latest book is Philosophy, Writing, and the Character of Thought (2018). He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.)