"No one can say we are wanting in faith. The mere fact of our living is itself inexhaustible in its proof of faith."
"You call that a proof of faith? But one simply cannot not live."
"In that very 'simply cannot' lies the insane power of faith; in that denial it embodies itself." — translated by Willa and Edna Muir
25: Once we have granted accommodation to the Evil One he no longer demands we should believe him.
26: The afterthoughts with which you justify your accommodation of the Evil One are not yours but those of the Evil One.
The animal snatches the whip from its master and whips itself so as to become master, and does not know all this is only a fantasy caused by a new knot in the master's whiplash.
I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this. — T Clark
This. And not reading from the cannon. — Tom Storm
Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.
It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory. — baker
I don't remember ever hearing the term "bare attention" before. Beyond that, I don't see how anything written here contradicts what I've written. All of the posts in this discussion have been painted with a pretty broad brush. There's plenty of room for dotting "t"s and crossing "i"s and working out the details. — T Clark
In my experience, classroom learning works and sticks just fine. The students just need to be open to and ready for it. — Artemis
It should be noted that the lines you quote from Kafka are half of aphorism #104, the last of the series titled Reflections On Sin, Pain, Hope, And True Way. — Paine
Whatever "doing philosophy" may be, texts that strive to be more than a list of self-sufficient explanations need to live together in a certain way to become what they are talking about. I suppose one could look at that element in a purely instrumental fashion but there is more to it than that. — Paine
Darling, there's isn't much to read from the cannon.
Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.
How do you function without texts? By ignoring the fact that you read them in the past?
It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory.
— baker — baker
Maybe you could continue your reading in silence. — frank
You don't need to read in general to be anyone, you need to spend time wisely on subjects you want to learn about. — Varde
Nature is the learning resource, consciousness - the tool. — Varde
No jibe intended, but this as such says nothing. The question is, did it grant you the competence to reason philosophically? I have no opinion either way, or on you, but often I see self educated people loudly boasting about their abilities and I often wonder why.I have self-educated for many years. — Varde
That is of course fine. We all have our preferences.Nothing wrong with reading books though - I prefer art. — Varde
It is a bit like saying, "I ain't repairing no goddam shoes, but I still consider myself a shoemaker". — Tobias
Wisely, on the subject matter (what you want to learn about), not generally(generally being wise). — Varde
I'm not suggesting that consc. is always a tool - it can be less placid. — Varde
I'm not here to boast, I'm reinforcing my point that books aren't a requirement to be intellectual, and it's easy for me to reason using other methods. — Varde
My take is that it’s more like claiming there are different approach’s to shoe making & repair, such as a more rational approach or a more intuitive approach, and if our way is satisfactory, asking what we may be missing by not taking the other approach. — praxis
You'll need to read the whole essay I linked to to get a better sense of what I'm talking about. — baker
I think the bare minimum would be to deal with problems philosophers deal with and do so in a way that can stand up to scrutiny by others. — Tobias
As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. — T Clark
No disagreement, though it’s unclear to me what value this may personally provide. I wonder if it’s possible to have studied these problems, have a solid foundation in logic and critical thinking, be able to express thoughts and ideas well, and perhaps be unsatisfied in some way. The shoemaker gets money for his footwear. What does the philosopher get? We know it ain’t much money.
Incidentally, I don’t meet that bare minimum and that’s why I try to ‘stay in my lane’ on this site and not interfere in discussions that are over my head. And besides fiction, I tend to read books on science rather than philosophy. For the most part, I like this site because I can practice writing, critical thinking, and am exposed to interesting ideas that I may not otherwise encounter. — praxis
Nice post.
Going back to the different approaches that we talked about, they may each have their strengths and weaknesses, and for whatever reason, we may have a preference or natural aptitude for one and tend to favor it, but I think different combinations can offer the types of value that you mention.
Is it wineoclock yet? Almost. :razz: — praxis
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.