We lose the ability to take the world for granted and stop believing in those common sense truisms we all agree on NOT QUESTIONING, for discussion sake - to avoid falling into a maddening relativism. — WaterLungs
to avoid falling into a maddening relativism. — WaterLungs
Poets do not go mad; but chess players do... — WaterLungs
but a common sense acceptance that we need to suspend disbelief temporarily, to continue living life without questioning everything. Otherwise we couldn't leave our beds, because we would be trying to rationally justify/find a reason or a purpose to every single action we take. Here nature is important, were alive because breathing is automatic and doesn't depend on rational deliberations: a radical skeptic would die if breathing depended on his epistemological certainties.
- I think Hume describes this much better than me: — WaterLungs
- To make a coffee you have to act as someone who believes that coffee is real, not real in the ultimate metaphysical/epistemological sense, but real ENOUGH in the sense that: — WaterLungs
artists like Van Gogh [or mathematicians like John Nash] who go mad — WaterLungs
- this is a very good point and I agree with you. But what I failed to state more clearly doesn't go against this point.seems exceptions don't imply the absence of a dependable generalization.
For example, during hallucinations we feel colors more vividly, the same colors of our day-to-day experience, but in a more intense way.
those same colors of everyday life are experienced with more intensity, giving a "metaphysical tone" the experience like something magical? Or making us realize there's no difference between the common and the metaphysical? But a spectrum of experiences with a continuity? — WaterLungs
"Conclusion": I think Chesterton is wrong, making a faulty generalization. Both mathematicians, philosophers and artists have to deal with high level abstractions and uncertainty, mystery is part of their day-to-day lives.
Do you agree or disagree with my view? If you think I'm wrong, I would appreciate you could help me see things more clearly. Thank you for reading. — WaterLungs
I don't think poetic insights are incompatible with reason, — WaterLungs
Modern society is obsessed with authenticity and self-fulfillment, to fulfill one's potential is seen as the highest value. — WaterLungs
How can one reach one's potential without being inserted in a community? — WaterLungs
Sorry for this pseudo-intellectual rant. — WaterLungs
Sam Harris podcas — WaterLungs
What you said reminds of me of the Survivorship bias: we only focus on the winners, forgetting how many people have to lose to "produce" one winner:
- Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias. — WaterLungs
The truth is I haven't checked medical records/statistics to see the the number of cases of madness in this two "different" groups, namely, mathematicians and artists:
- First Problem: Define what madness is, I don't believe it's merely a social construct, there's a biological reality to it, but still it's very difficult to define, since in psychological/medical literature a disease is defined by it's symptoms and it's possible cures - a functional definition. This goes against my belief that it's not a social construct, but it's very hard to define what "madness" is. — WaterLungs
- Second Problem: What makes an artist or a mathematician? Someone with an artistic or mathematical inclination is not an artist or mathematician? They have to be professionals? To have a relevant impact in knowledge creation to be a "true" mathematician? — WaterLungs
- Third Problem: What's the difference between an artist and a mathematician? Can we be both at the same time? Da Vinci was, to a certain extent. Is he the exception or the rule? Maybe most people share both traits, but since they weren't as good as Da Vinci, they were forgotten — WaterLungs
We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. — David Hume
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. — David Hume
Artists have nightmares, but it takes a scientist to realise them. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.