sentimental — chiknsld

Fool.

Doesn’t answer the question — Mww

In its own way, it does!

The point of OM is seen only when reflected in a mirror placed at the bottom end of the word, OW!!

:roll:

I doubt anyone ever began with high competence.
And I'd think the same about rigor.
One's amount of rigor depends on one's degree of caring about accuracy. Would you say? — Yohan

I don't think anyone ever said high competence is found at the start of any pursuit.

Rigor and accuracy are only assessed in relation to something external - a criterion of value. What would that be?

What does accuracy look like in philosophy?

As a way of looking for some agreement I would say that in the opposite direction I think merely parroting other philosophical thoughts is not exactly ‘philosophy’ as you seem to see it. By this I mean they are scholars of philosophy but generally learn by reading what others say about others.

I’ve conversed with people about Kant who have never actually read Kant first hand and refer entirely to someone else’s commentary on Kant … I find that kind of approach strange/delusional if one then says ‘I am a philosopher’ after that when really they are just knowledgeable about said philosophy (which isn’t useless). It it something like watching a movie and then acting like you’ve read the book. At least it isn’t as bad as reading a review of a movie and acting like you’ve read the book (those are the ‘lazy’ ones). Of course there are geniuses, but they are not exactly common.

I think the most fruitful path is the harder path. Read the original text without any commentary and draw your own conclusions/questions from it. Once you’ve done that then look at commentary. Sadly, in reality, students and those interested in such mostly skim over things because there is just too much to look into.

If you haven’t read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, at least three works by Nietzsche and have a pretty solid reading history of Plato and Aristotle, then you are not a ‘philosopher’ worth listening to but you might be a decent point of reference for the works you have some knowledge of or as someone to bounce ideas off for a ‘philosopher’.

Rigor and accuracy are only assessed in relation to something external - a criterion of value. What would that be?

What does accuracy look like in philosophy? — Tom Storm

What are these questions about? I'm not getting the picture of where you are.
Does not accuracy look like non-contradiction?
That seems like too easy an answer, that you'd already know...I suppose you think I have some less popular view on how to measure accuracy?
PS. I meant to say rigour.

What are these questions about? I'm not getting the picture of where you are. — Yohan

I'm not sure what you mean. I am asking questions about your position as I don't understand it fully, that's all.

Does not accuracy look like non-contradiction? — Yohan

You tell me? I don't know what accuracy means when it comes to philosophy. Accurate against what standard?

Does not accuracy look like non-contradiction?
— Yohan

You tell me? I don't know what accuracy means when it comes to philosophy. Accurate against what standard? — Tom Storm

Basically you are summarising epistemology. How do we know?
Goodnight.

Unfortunately dentists are far less regulated than MDs.

The cataphatic method (of affirmation) fails us, we're unable to pin down what a philosopher is. Isn't that a hint that we should try something different, something like the apophatic method (of negation). It maybe possible to know what a philosopher isn't, via negativa, if we can't tell what a philosopher is. A philosopher is God then, oui? Popper's falsificationism, the bottom line, is the view that we can't know if we're right, but all is not lost, we can know if we're wrong! That's a relief! Oui, monsieur/mademoiselle?

I just don’t think it makes any sense for anyone to label themselves as a ‘philosopher’ if they have never actually read ( and I mean REALLY read) an actual work of philosophy. — I like sushi

I don’t see why. One can be a musician having never read a music book — or ever hear Beethoven.

I think the natural state of a human being is philosophical. — Yohan

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think many questions (usually considered philosophical) are very human, very universal — but as I said earlier, not everyone who thinks is a thinker.

I see it as a sort of … way of being, — Yohan

Agreed.



I was really impressed with Thin Red Line, and liked the New World — but over time I’m less impressed. Still, supposedly he’s a Heideggarian.

What exactly is the point of being a philosopher anyway? Science is far more interesting. — chiknsld

What’s the point of being a scientist?

If you haven’t read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, at least three works by Nietzsche and have a pretty solid reading history of Plato and Aristotle, then you are not a ‘philosopher’ worth listening to but you might be a decent point of reference for the works you have some knowledge of or as someone to bounce ideas off for a ‘philosopher’. — I like sushi

For me the heart of philosophy is, "How ought I to live"?
Going deep into things I'd say is part of the equation. But deep diving into philosophical works is not an adequate measure of how philosophical someone is, in my view.

I think the natural state of a human being is philosophical.
— Yohan

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think many questions (usually considered philosophical) are very human, very universal — but as I said earlier, not everyone who thinks is a thinker. — Xtrix

Ok not everyone is a thinker.
All birds have wings, but not all birds are flyers.

I was really impressed with Thin Red Line, and liked the New World — but over time I’m less impressed. Still, supposedly he’s a Heideggarian. — Xtrix

I figured. I'm not keen on serious 'issue' films. My sense is Heidegger is difficult enough to understand without further obfuscations and the interpretive impressions of some lofty auteur with a movie camera. :razz:

forgetting to live while trying to find out how to live — Agent Smith

Just act!

Just act! — EugeneW

No! Don't ask me why?

As a retired mathematician, my profession is defined a bit more specifically, citing "using extensive knowledge of mathematics" to solve problems, etc. — jgill

Funny thing that your quote definitely excludes mathematics as a branch of philosophy, in effect declaring by omission that math is not philosophy. Whilethemore math IS an inquiry into a branch of philosophy. The logic component of philosophy, to be pedantic.

Just act! — EugeneW

That's too easy. Even a robot with no mind can do that, and much better too, than a philosopher.

I think the natural state of a human being is philosophical.
— Yohan

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think many questions (usually considered philosophical) are very human, very universal — but as I said earlier, not everyone who thinks is a thinker.
— Xtrix
Ok not everyone is a thinker.
All birds have wings, but not all birds are flyers. — Yohan

Wrong logic. All birds have wings, therefore all birds are winged animals. This is a correct conclusion.

Not everyone who thinks is a thinker.
Again, the wrong logic. The very action of thinking is what defines the actor as a thinker.

??? Whence do you suck these false statements out of, Xtrix? Are you by any chance the same user who goes under the name of Bartricks? You certainly sound like him or her.

What’s the point of being a scientist? — Xtrix

Is this an honest question, Xtrix? Are you really incapable of answering this question yourself? If you are, then why are you asking this? And if you are not, then what are you doing on a philosophy website?

Wrong logic. All birds have wings, therefore all birds are winged animals. This is a correct conclusion. — god must be atheist

You're being excessively "logical". When logic goes beyond common sense, it becomes trivial

That's too easy. Even a robot with no mind can do that, and much better too, than a philosopher. — god must be atheist

Robots don't act. They pretend but they're fucking mindless fucking technology. I would kill every fucking robot in sight. Fucking technology. How powerful we feel ourselves with FUCKING technology! Fucking dildos!

Robots don't act. They pretend — EugeneW

Are you nuts? Robots don't pretend. It requires a mind to pretend. And you can't kill something that is not alive... you can destroy them maybe?

I don't know, but I think that contrary to your opinion, dildoes are VERY useful robots. You just have to learn how to use them.

You're being excessively "logical". When logic goes beyond common sense, it becomes trivial — Yohan

You may be right... but logic can't be wrong if it's right. Can somebody be "excessively" right? No. Can something not fly if it has wings? Yes. Can something not have wings if it has wings? No. So I don't stand corrected; you must admit that I made no logical mistakes.

How you judge the end result of logical arguments is beyond my ability to influence. So you can call this trivial, and I have no argument against that.

You may be right... but logic can't be wrong if it's right. Can somebody be "excessively" right? No. Can something not fly if it has wings? Yes. Can something not have wings if it has wings? No. So I don't stand corrected; you must admit that I made no logical mistakes.

How you judge the end result of logical arguments is beyond my ability to influence. So you can call this trivial, and I have no argument against that. — god must be atheist

If someone misses the forrest for the trees, they are off the mark, as I see it. Maybe not wrong to the letter, but wrong in spirit.

I'd rather be right in spirit and be only good enough technically, or even wrong, than precisely right technically but wrong in spirit.

Not everyone who thinks is a thinker.
Again, the wrong logic. The very action of thinking is what defines the actor as a thinker. — god must be atheist

"As I said earlier..." Where I made a clear distinction by what kind of "thinking" I'm here referring to: philosophical thought. Which you'd know if you gave yourself the slightest pause before jumping in to point out an utter triviality.

The context:

I don't know if there is one alternative, but I don't see why "thinker" can't be used as meaning basically the same thing, if by thinking we mean the type of thinking involved in what is normally called philosophy (which, to me, is distinguished by the questions being contemplated). — Xtrix

-----

??? Whence do you suck these false statements out of, Xtrix? Are you by any chance the same user who goes under the name of Bartricks? You certainly sound like him or her.

I have no idea who or what you're talking about. But it's entertaining.

Is this an honest question, Xtrix? Are you really incapable of answering this question yourself? If you are, then why are you asking this? — god must be atheist

Here's some advice: try keeping up with the conversation by doing the bare minimum of reading both the response and what was being responded to.

The question, "What is the point of being a philosopher?" -- followed by the statement "Science is far more interesting" deserves the question I pose.

But feel free to continue prowling the forum for opportunities to display your intellectual superiority by responding to context-free fragments.

Funny thing that your quote definitely excludes mathematics as a branch of philosophy — god must be atheist

It's too rigorous to be considered philosophy. :cool:

It's too rigorous to be considered philosophy. :cool:
9h — jgill

It's a quite perverted mode of thinking though. In that sense it finds a good place in philosophy!

...to live in a vast and proud tranquility; always beyond... — Nietzsche

Yes. And in solitude. Philosophy takes one the doorstep of religion, and there you sit like some abandoned child. Don't let them take you IN!!!! But stay there, take a look around the place; look at terrain, peak through a window. Take notes. THEN: Find the SOB who left you there!

Everyone is a philosopher as we all seek wisdom in whatever we're doing. Thieves want to be more successful etc etc so the term is really useless. — Shwah

Yes, the philosophy of knitting....ponderous, provocative. But then, why are we born to suffer and die? One of my favorite philosophical questions. It can be just knitting with an attitude; or, it can be so profound it'll drive you mad. The former lines up with analytic philosophy. The latter with continental. More or less.
It is truly something, one could argue, to really grasp the indeterminacy that all presumption to know.