A revised edition of The Embodied Mind was published in 2017, featuring substantive introductions by the surviving authors, as well as a preface by Jon Kabat-Zinn.” — Joshs

and a splendid book it is, I've learned a ton from it.

Popart and dadaism are two that come to mind. — Merkwurdichliebe

Agree. Andy Warhol makes me :vomit:

I think that the perception of philosophical "advance" (whatever that might mean) is being colored by this belief. — Moliere

Thank you for responding to the topic.

"Advancing" means making progress, which is the subject of this topic. And the subject of progress in philosophy is discussed quite a lot. One of the many interesting articles is "Why Progress Is Slower In Philosophy Than In Science" ((https://dailynous.com/2017/06/02/progress-slower-philosophy-science/), published in a site about professional philosophy.

Progress in Philosophy, all said and done, is (traditionally) measured epistemologically: Ignoramus $\to$ Sage. Clearly if we use this metric, philosophical progress hasta be viewed from the standpoint of science (philosophy's offspring). If not, it becomes quite clear that philosophy is stuck, it hasn't made even an inch of progress since it began a coupla thousand years ago.

Ergo, we need to rethink what philosophical progress is. The low hanging fruit is ideas (sensu amplo). The number of philosophical ideas have ballooned from a handful to so many that the set of a philosophical polymaths is the null set.

"My empirical knowledge is increasing, but is my understanding and wisdom increasing?" — Yohan

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Why "empirical" knowledge only? Besides from experience --which I consider most important-- knowledge can be also acquired from learning (theory, facts) and reasoning (critical/logical thinking). All of them build ones's reality about a certain subject and in general.

One's undestanding and reality grow proportionally. The better one learns a foreign language (by reading or hearing it) the more and better one is able to undestand it.

Wisdom also grows proportionally. One has a better judgement about a subject the more experienced and knowledgeable one is on that subject.

I put all that under one umbrella: mind.

And I use to say, for myself, that if I ever stop evolving menttally, and esp. intellectually, I will be "dead",

It's a perfectly valid philosophical concern — Wayfarer

Thank you for your response to the topic.

I assume that either yourself are not sure whether the external world actually exists or not, or you believe that there are strong reasons why someone else does. Is that so?

Whatever is the case, I will respect it.

I assume that either yourself are not sure whether the external world actually exists or not, or you believe that there are strong reasons why someone else does. Is that so? — Alkis Piskas

I will refer you to my responses in the thread which this started from, rather than trying to re-state them again, in particular this one.

But in a more general sense, philosophy often consists of asking questions about matters which most people take for granted as being seemingly obvious or not worth questioning. 'Wisdom begins in wonder', according to the Socrates of Plato's dialogues (not, as the Bible says, with the fear of the Lord).

Ignoramus →→ Sage. — Agent Smith

In sophistry that's the plan, but in philosophy it's
Fool —>—>—> Lesser Fool. " :flower: "

In sophistry that's the plan, but in philosophy it's
Fool —>—>—> Lesser Fool. " :flower: " — 180 Proof

Yeah! I wanna run something I've been mulling over for the past few weeks by you.

It's about the yin-yang dualistic model of reality. The classical example of duality is, to my reckoning, the light-dark pair.

Suppose now I bring math into the picture: I could construct a light scale as such: 0 - 10 with 0 being complete darkness and 10 being maximum luminosity. Notice what happens next. Darkness is just 0 light and I can discard it and say it's all light. We could do the same thing to light using a darkness scale: 0 (max light) - 10 (total darkness).

What sayest thou?

Dialectical monism.

Dialectical monism. — 180 Proof

Archived for future reference! Danke!

I will refer you to my responses in the thread which this started from, rather than trying to re-state them again, in particular this one. — Wayfarer

You are give me too much work to do! I would be satisfied with a simple affirmation or negation oo what I have assumed.

philosophy often consists of asking questions about matters which most people take for granted as being seemingly obvious or not worth questioning. — Wayfarer

Not philosophy. Only people who are engaged in phillosophical discussions do that.

Re: 'Wisdom begins in wonder',: Certainly. But can you think of Socrates or Plato or any other great or important philosophers wondering whether the physical universe exists or not and that kind of silly questions or commonly accepted facts or truths? It would be totally ridiculous. And philosophy would have maybe not survived as a field of knowledge or whatever else.

Things need always to be put in their right perspective! One must always consider and recognize analogies and differences in importance.

But can you think of Socrates or Plato or any other great or important philosophers wondering whether the physical universe exists or not and that kind of silly questions or commonly accepted facts or truths? — Alkis Piskas

Wondering whether or in what way the Universe is physical is by no means ‘silly’. Physics itself is radically incomplete, both on the level of the basic constituents of matter, and in respect of the origin and scope of the Cosmos.

The smaller than/the larger than the human scale we go, the more the mind gets involved; our senses, designed as they are to operate at a specific level of reality, are rendered utterly useless.

The mind can go where the body can't; there seem to be risks though as often truth becomes a casualty or is knocked off its pedestal by coherence.

Wondering whether or in what way the Universe is physical is by no means ‘silly’. — Wayfarer

Well, Science works fine with the physical universe and produces great results without have to question its existence. Fortunately! And if some scientist does question it, I don't know if he could keep his job or even belong to the scientific community anymore. Not even any scientifically-oriented or well informed mind could question such a thing. Only some "philosophically-oriented" minds can. And in fact, they find support in that from other "philosophically-oriented" minds as I can see in this thread. But I don't think that such questions could stand in professional and academic philosophical circles and communities, as I have already mentioned.

So, that's it for me. It's too much already. I will stop trying to explain and talk about how idiotic and useless is the questioning of the existence of the external world is.

And if some scientist does question it, I don't know if he could keep his job or even belong to the scientific community anymore. — Alkis Piskas

Just as well you’re not in charge!

"Advancing" means making progress, which is the subject of this topic. And the subject of progress in philosophy is discussed quite a lot. One of the many interesting articles is "Why Progress Is Slower In Philosophy Than In Science" ((https://dailynous.com/2017/06/02/progress-slower-philosophy-science/), published in a site about professional philosophy. — Alkis Piskas

My thought is that there is neither progress in science or philosophy, really. "Progress" has some end-goal in mind, or at least a notion of how things ought to improve. And what scientists think of scientific progress isn't exactly the same as what the public at large thinks about scientific progress -- and as for philosophical progress, that simply depends upon the person speaking since there's no means for specifying, exactly, what progress consists in. Or, at least, one can do so -- but it will just be a stipulation.


I was suggesting, though, that the intension of "science" is "that which people tend to agree to" and the intension of "philosophy" is "that which people tend to disagree upon" in many uses -- but that the extension of those terms changes over time depending upon the state of a given science/philosophy. (basically the spin-off theory mentioned in your article. The other article linked there has a paywall, and I done read my free ones this month)

I'm still making my way through Chalmer's, but I'm pretty sure that my complaint is going to be somewhat dry but focused on measurement. I don't think Chalmer's is going into the problems of measuring things like "convergence to the truth" or "degree of belief" -- much less whose beliefs get to count (if a scientist quits his job and is looking for another, do the beliefs still count? How long? Do graduate students count? What about if one of the respondents changes their beliefs down the line, a common phenomena? How about when a belief is able to be expressed by two different sentences? Does the believer believe both sentences, or only one? Stuff like that)

That is, what appears to Chalmer's to be an empirical proposition in his argument "There has not been large collective convergence on the big questions of philosophy.", while it may be true, and I think it's empirical in principle, in practice we wouldn't know how to determine the empirical truth of the proposition. So it boils down to dueling intuitions on the beliefs of others'.

"Progress" has some end-goal in mind, or at least a notion of how things ought to improve — Moliere

Good point.
Progress however can mean or refer to various things. One is moving towards a destination or end-goal, as you say. Another is evolving towards an improved condition. A student is making progress. There's not necessarily an end point or goal. It also means developing gradually. One can be always moving forward, evolving. "Improvement" I think is the key word here. Also, developing a more workable theory or system --e.g. about ethics-- can be considered a progress in philosophy. However, such things happen quite rarely to talk about a "visible" progress in philosophy in general. As I said, what we can offer to philosophy is mainly details and technicalities. But this is not real progress. And they are nothing compared to what philosophy can offer to us. Which, is the reason we are in this place, afterall.

what scientists think of scientific progress isn't exactly the same as what the public at large thinks about scientific progress — Moliere

Certainly. People see mainly the technological progress, the practical side, the applications of science. They cannot follow the scientific knowledge and general progress of science as a field of knowledge. How can they? It is too specialized a sector in life. Scientists consider a progress the discovery of a new particle, or a tiny dwarf in the space. These things go unnoticed in the public.

the intension of "science" is "that which people tend to agree to" and the intension of "philosophy" is "that which people tend to disagree upon" in many uses — Moliere

Interesting point!

Re "the spin-off theory": Indeed, the lack of progress in philosophy may be an illusion.
Well, again, it depends on how one defines and what one considers as "progress" ...

Re "the spin-off theory": Indeed, the lack of progress in philosophy may be an illusion.
Well, again, it depends on how one defines and what one considers as "progress" ... — Alkis Piskas

Definitely. And I'm saying that philosophy often serves as a kind of creative ground for the creation of new sciences -- it's called philosophy when no one agrees and it sounds absurd (Galileo), and it's called science after someone shows how clever they are (by hook or by crook, but people are often persuaded by accurate predictions or things which satisfy their desires so those are frequently focused upon -- but note it's not the truth of propositions, but rather there persuasiveness that's being put forward here)

I don't think there's really an essence between the disciplines -- rather, more like a continuum that as things become uncontroversial scientists begin to step in and expand while holding some fundamentals constant.

Philosophers, on the whole, don't hold concepts constant or agree upon what philosophy should be doing.

So it's a sociological theory as to why we believe these things are different: they're different because we treat them differently, on the basis of how much agreement there is.

Against that Chalmer's points out:

Only one view (non-skeptical realism about the external world) attracts over 80% support. Three views (a priori knowledge, atheism, scientific realism) attract over 70% support, with significant dissent, and three more views attract over 60% support.

So that would seem to be, relative to his notion of progress (multiplicitous, but still concerned with true beliefs), a counter-argument to the claim.

I'd just say that these questions will change throughout history, except maybe the first one -- but I'd say the first one is a conceit of modern philosophy more than a real issue, so it's not a surprise that people agree on it. It's part of the culture of philosophy. It wouldn't be that interesting to discuss knowledge if we didn't know anything, right? So realism is a natural belief for people interested in philosophy, given that they care about such things. If someone were a skeptic, they likely wouldn't care too much about knowledge and metaphysics.

hilosophy often serves as a kind of creative ground for the creation of new sciences -- it's called philosophy when no one agrees and it sounds absurd (Galileo), and it's called science after someone shows how clever they are (by hook or by crook, but people are often persuaded by accurate predictions or things which satisfy their desires so those are frequently focused upon -- but note it's not the truth of propositions, but rather there persuasiveness that's being put forward here)

I don't think there's really an essence between the disciplines -- rather, more like a continuum that as things become uncontroversial scientists begin to step in and expand while holding some fundamentals constant. — Moliere

Excellent points :100:

Agree. Andy Warhol makes me :vomit: — Wayfarer

Sometime in the ealy 20th century, the art world fell victim to slave morality.

Sometime in the ealy 20th century, the art world fell victim to slave morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

First, I am an artist who knows a lot of art history. So, I am interested in what art you do like, which seems to be 19th century art.


And please explain what you mean by, "in the ealy 20th century, the art world fell victim to slave morality." What does any art have to do with slave morality?

Agree. Andy Warhol makes me — Wayfarer

What art do you like?

Sometime in the ealy 20th century, the art world fell victim to slave morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

You mean Christianity?

Thank you :)

Hrm, hrm, hrm... Yeah, I can see that Chalmer's is being Chalmers. :D He has a masterful command of the issue, he explains his opponents positions clearly and eloquently, then he asserts "But there's more to it!" :D

To be fair he's right that my thesis would need more work than some hand-wavey allusions, so we're kind of in the same boat in that regard. So I can understand why someone whose looking for a reason for philosophy questions to be different to simply not see eye-to-eye with me, since I tend to see the activities as pretty similar, at least similar enough that there's not a strict distinction to be made. We can take examples for a basis of judgment and we kind of know what we're talking about in how they're different, but it's not anywhere near as clear as it needs to be for Chalmers' thesis, I think. But there it is -- dueling intuitions :D


EDIT: I should note I love Chalmers, even if this sounds disparaging. He's definitely one of my favorite living philosophers.

philosophy often serves as a kind of creative ground for the creation of new sciences — Moliere

True. Philosophy has always been an incubator for scientific ideas and theories.

Philosophers, on the whole, don't hold concepts constant or agree upon what philosophy should be doing. — Moliere

True.

they're different because we treat them differently, on the basis of how much agreement there is. — Moliere

Right. Agreement is a key element that separates Science from Philosophy, scientists from philosophers. It is very strong in one and very weak in the other. Obviously, since the first offers hard-to- be-denied proofs and the other not. The first uses hard-to-be-ignored physical experimentation and the other not. And so on.

It wouldn't be that interesting to discuss knowledge if we didn't know anything — Moliere

I wonder what Socrates would have to say on that! (Re: "The one thing I know is that I know nothing") :grin:

Obviously, since the first offers hard-to- be-denied proofs and the other not. The first uses hard-to-be-ignored physical experimentation and the other not. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

I think this is the one part where you and I differ. While I have a limiting view of philosophy, since I see the two as kind of doing the same thing more or less, that view applies to science as well.

Agreement? Disagreement? Why did that matter in the first place? Not sure.

I think that, at first blush, they look very different. But if you care about them and invest the time to figure out why one or the other works then that difference isn't as easy to pin down as it looked up front.

What art do you like? — Jackson

I am not sufficiently educated in the subject to identify any particular artist or school. As the saying goes, 'I don't know much about it but I know what I like.' I like the Impressionists. I like Marc Chagall. I don't much like abstract modernism. I like some classical works but I understand that they belong to a different historic period. As you mentioned a lot of 'pop art' is ephemeral trash. But I don't want to derail the thread.

This is an old view of what science and philosophy do, harking back to Kant. Popper’s falsificationist philosophy of science is a representation of this modernist idea of scientific progress. With Putnam , Kuhn and Rorty we see a shift in thinking away from Kant toward a conceptual relativism that forms the basis of newer work in psychology. You are reading Nietzsche
as a modernist, but these days he tends to be read as a postmodernist. — Joshs

Very good. Of, course we are debating about progress in philosophy, and I'm assuming a position opposite from your's, but I don't necessarily disagree with the point your making (after all, progress in philosophy could mean anything). If there is a solid argument for progress in philosophy, yours is as good as any. So keep it up, it is a philosophical delight speaking with you. Let's continue...

So then...I see philosophical theories like conceptual relativism, and see older philosophical ideas echoed in them (whether it is an idea rehashed in more contemporary language, or something implied that becomes fleshed out in greater detail.) Now, I will admit that conceptual relativism is a piece of top notch philosophy, and its inventors/discoverers are philosophical geniuses, but I would not say it advanced philosophy significantly. It is basically a synthesis of Nietzsche's perspectivism and Kant's a posterioiri knowledge.

In contrast, look at the supreme philosophers that advanced philosophy, Socrates, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche. The next tier would include guys like Plato, Locke, Hume, Hegel, and Wittgenstein. After that we have myriad philosophers that would have been included with the aforementioned (like Popper, Putnam, Kuhn and Rorty) but they were born too late. The (so-called) third tier philosophers have contributed some of the most original thought in philosophy, amazingly genius stuff, and perhaps some of their combined contributions have, at times, culminated in philosophical progress, but I would not say that any of their contributions alone have advanced philosophy in any significant way.

If only we could agree about what constitutes philosophical progress? But that would take another thread. I would prefer to digress here, if necessary.