I think that's fair and far better expressed than my version. — Tom Storm
How does everything supervene on thinking?
Most failure of understanding is due to an inability to see the obvious, rather from an inability to think. — Yohan
I think it was Orwell who said to see what's in front of ones nose requires a constant struggle.There's some truth to this but I was asking more about your idea about people's 'inability to see the obvious.' I don't think we can see without thinking. We see, then we process and put what we see into some context. This might be different if you were enlightened (a category of human I would consider contentious at best). And what is 'the obvious'? — Tom Storm
It's self-evident to me. It's like asking how I came to the conclusion of an axiom. I can't prove axioms by way of logic. Axioms are pre-logical, based on direct knowledge.How does everything supervene on thinking?
Most failure of understanding is due to an inability to see the obvious, rather from an inability to think.
— Yohan
How did you arrive at this conclusion? To what do you owe this insight to if not thinking? — TheMadFool
That's odd because you seem to be "...providing arguments..." — TheMadFool
I owe the insight to sight. I just see it.How did you arrive at this conclusion? To what do you owe this insight to if not thinking?
What I mean by "everything supervenes on thinking" is that no matter what this exercise of homing in on the "...most useful skill..." involves, it, for certain, requires us to think well. — TheMadFool
Change is a most fundamental nature of this world. When we suiffer, it's usually in some part because of a failure adapt to change. We got to where we are as humans because we adapted. — Yohan
the most useful skill is the ability to adapt to change. — Yohan
If I say it's self evidently hot, because I directly experience the heat...I'm explaining my experience, which is self evident. I can also point to sweat and other things caused by heat. Something can be self evident yet also given indirect inferences to its truth as well. However, indirect inferences are not proof. When did I claim I was offering proof? I said my view cannot be proven to someone who has a radically different view.Why do you say that it's self-evident when you take the trouble of proving it? — TheMadFool
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.