Is that what you think I’m doing? Or is this another strawman argument? Try reading my definition again. — Possibility
In Western Philosophical tradition, they investigate logical correctness of the terminology, and their sayings, codes, principles etc, whether they are making sense in logical point of view. So it is critical study of the subjects rather than learning the subject themselves. — Corvus
Hume said "Reason is slave of Passion." Because it tells you things, but cannot make you to act. It is Passion which does it. I or Hume couldn't have been a chauvinist or any ist, when kept saying Reason is a universal tool to tell things to you, and is slave of passion. (Hume, Enquires and Treaties of Human Nature, somewhere). — Corvus
Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying... — Possibility
There is more to correct reasoning than logic. — Possibility
1. What is Philosophy in your thought? — Corvus
Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. — Possibility
2. What is your definition of Reality? — Corvus
I’ve already answered this question here. Twice.
Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth.
— Possibility — Possibility
So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language. — Possibility
It sounded like not Philosophy defined by philosophical view point, but from a psychology or layman. It is just too loose definition, and unclear. It does not mention anything about methodology of the subject.
"determine a model of truth"? by how?. Do you want to determine a model of truth, but deny the importance of logic and reason? — Corvus
So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language.
— Possibility
Language alone would be insufficient. I am not sure if language alone can cover and reflect the whole picture of mental activities such as thinking, believing, imagination and judgement. Your thinking is very much limited. I feel that reality and logic and reasoning are closely related. If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, then something is wrong somewhere, and you need to find out about that. — Corvus
they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth. — Possibility
The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant. — Possibility
If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, how far back will you go to restructure? If you employ a set methodology that gives primacy to logic and reason within a Western philosophical discourse, how can you investigate the correctness of that methodology?
I get that clinging to a logical foundation or reasonable methodology gives the illusion of certainty. But what if that’s where you’re wrong? How will you ever know? — Possibility
they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth.
— Possibility
Could you give some examples on this? I am not sure what experiences you are talking about here, and where it came from. — Corvus
The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant.
— Possibility
They make sense, when one is reading the book "Critique of Pure Reason" with the context, but when someone is just saying it or written down out of blue without telling where it came from, then it can cause confusion. Kant has been talking about them in his grand scheme of human understanding how they all work.
But when you just say it, one will wonder, what imagination, understanding and judgement? Because they are always imagination of something, understanding of something or judement of something. How can you just talk about empty imagination, understanding and judgement without any contents or objects? It just sounded abstract and empty and meaningless. — Corvus
You keep verifying and validating. You don't restructure anything. Restructuring comes automatically after the verification and validation. Reason and logic is the tool for that exercise. But without co-relation of reason, logic and reality, your verification and validation will never be possible. — Corvus
Well, that was badly worded on my part - sorry. I was trying to say that methodology is limited when a privileged place (over experience) is given to reason and logic. When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth. — Possibility
I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. — Possibility
I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. And I’m not talking about any contents or objects, but the faculties themselves. This is a common error that originates with the translation of Kant’s ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft‘ into English, and the failure of many philosophers to even read this third critique. He’s not referring to the actual ‘judgement (urteils) of something’, as in CofPR, but to the faculty of judgement - not just the capacity to judge, but the pure possibility of human judgement - which influences both reason and ethics at an a priori level.
But here Kant glimpses beyond reason, and recognises free, non-judgemental harmony between the faculties of imagination and understanding as the realm of ‘genius’, wisdom, sagacity. He left the door open to a broader approach to philosophy... — Possibility
Verifying and validating against what? Against your conception of reality? Against logic or reason?
It is the structure of this co-relation that is the key: the model of truth. But where does experience fit into this? Without an understanding of how feeling affects our perception of reality, reason or logic, and how this affected perception influences attention and effort, your verification and validation will never be accurate in relation to reality. At best you have a prediction. — Possibility
In Kant, experience and truths is only possible, when you allow the inherent reason and sensory experience are combined. He distinguished different kind of reasons - Pure Reason (for general perception and mathematical perception), Practical Reason (for ethical and aesthetic judgements). These reasons are inborn, and universal. They are transcendental and categorical. It is the foundation for all human knowledge. — Corvus
OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue. — Corvus
You’re only making it clearer to me that you’re unfamiliar with his third critique. I can’t say that I’m surprised — Possibility
Separate from the question on what reality is.Separate from philosophy? — Possibility
I want to be clear that I am not defining the whole of Western Philosophy — Possibility
I find it amusing that you consider my approach to be too narrow simply because of the words I’ve used, yet ‘extracting the common denominator from the tradition’ and the ‘prevailing attitudes’ of Western Philosophy to define all philosophy is not narrow? — Possibility
It’s a bit like defining ‘humanity’ by extracting the ‘common denominator’ from patriarchal tradition and the prevailing attitudes of men. — Possibility
The reference I made to Kant was to counter your suggestion that my definition was formed outside of philosophical discourse - a ‘layman’s definition’, I think were your words. — Possibility
appreciate reason is most significant foundation in Western Philosophy. — Corvus
Again, I’m not denying this - my point is that this foundation does not then define what Philosophy is or should be. Philosophy that ventures beyond the capacity of reason does not cease to be philosophy. — Possibility
Perhaps that's where our difference lies. To me, knowledge and truths beyond reason are in the realm of religion or psychology or whatever, but they are not philosophy. What cannot be said, sensed, talked or verified is not subject of philosophy. They are mysticism. — Corvus
hen you need to understand how its methodology differs from your own traditional ‘Western Philosophy’ model — Possibility
keeping in mind that your traditional model has its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning, etc — Possibility
It just seems to me as if you’re judging the validity of other models against a methodology that is itself limited in relation to truth. Your claim that reason is the ‘best’ tool for verification and validation (ie. an illusion of certainty) is argued within a tradition that dismisses other tools as ‘not philosophy’ because they don’t follow this tradition which claims (arbitrarily) that reason is the ‘best’ tool... It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, an imaginative ‘what if’ that ‘worked’ consistently enough to be consolidated into a formidable institution - rather like Christianity, or geocentrism - and now fights for ‘survival’ by beating back all but the most ‘pure’ fundamentalism. — Possibility
I wouldn't treat mysticism, religion and any other non philosophical subject with the philosophical methodology. If I am interested in a mysticism (which I am not in real life), then I would just go and read up about the mysticism. I will not try to bring mysticism under philosophical methodology, unless such situation had risen for some some peculiar circumstance, which I doubt. — Corvus
Could you please explain in detail on your saying "its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning etc"? What serious problems are you talking about here? — Corvus
OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue. — Corvus
My claim was not reason is the only and best tool, but rather, I was saying for Western Philosophical tradition rationalism has been dominating trend, and I follow the tradition. — Corvus
Still the best tool human has for the verification and validation is 'reason" and logic. If one doesn't see, or agree to this, then I have no other way to convince than tell him to meditate or pray for the truths he is after. — Corvus
But you ARE treating them with your philosophical methodology by isolating and excluding them from any critical discussion of truth. — Possibility
Bracketing out skepticism from a discussion of truth or reality is just a way of avoiding uncertainty. So, we can make these assertions about reality IFF our underlying logical assumptions and the meanings we attribute to language are true about reality. That we cannot use reason alone to verify this is a serious problem with the methodology in relation to determining an accurate model of truth. But you’re not after accuracy or correctness, only an illusion of certainty. And you’re willing to ignore, isolate or exclude any human capacity to access truth beyond reason in order to retain that illusion. — Possibility
I was drawing lines between subjects that can be dealt with reason, and subjects which is out of boundary of debate with reason. I cannot understand why you must be negative and keep saying "isolating and excluding". — Corvus
Topics that are out of boundary of reason should be left to the faith and mysticism, because you cannot come to concrete truths or conclusion by reasoning. So boundary has been drawn on the reason and faith. It is not isolating or excluding. — Corvus
Drawing arbitrary boundaries and lines, declaring what is in and out - please tell me how this is not isolating and excluding. There are no boundaries except those we draw in our own limited perception. I’m not expecting truth to be concrete or conclusive - that doesn’t mean it can’t be both accurate and practical. — Possibility
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.