It’s healthy to hold one’s philosophy to the grindstone of contrary ideas. — NOS4A2

Your philosophy is contraryism? :lol:

Why see philosophy as a separate domain to those enquiries? — Benj96

That's it! It's more inclusive than any other heading. More kinds of interesting question can be asked.

Why see philosophy as a separate domain to those enquiries? — Benj96

Because Enlightenment philosophy through to current philosophy begins with an assumption about the nature of consciousness and an assumption about whether "spirituality" has any coherent meaning as a concept. They begin with answers arrived at through the wrong questions, and reform the answer as a question that leads to their answer. Trying to argue from a spiritual perspective against these assumptions has felt futile to me over the years because my interlocutors and I are essentially speaking different languages, or even using different forms of communication; it's hand signals versus morse code.

Anyway, the flame's been removed from underneath my bum regardless.

Never underestimate a starling. — Jamal

A friend said to me today in our walk through the Yorkshire snow, 'Why do birds migrate?' I think what I like about a philosophy forum is that many people there will think the usual scientific answering 'explanations' partial at best, risible at worst: conservation of energy, seeking resources, and so on.

The less wrong answers are more sophisticated than that, and the subset of those that fall short of poetry but seem pertinent - that's when I like philosophical chat. Lately I've mostly eavesdropped but I keep thinking I'll get chatting again.

Well it's good to see you back here. Why migrate? Why not?

Trying to argue from a spiritual perspective against these assumptions has felt futile to me over the years because my interlocutors and I are essentially speaking different languages, or even using different forms of communication; it's hand signals versus morse code. — Noble Dust

If I'm honest Noble Dust I have had the same sort of experience as you have described. It can be very demoralising. Like we are both speaking some form of alien gibberish at one another which is wholly unreconcible.

But I discovered that this is the fundamental nature of "belief". If you believe something, you can see it, entertain it, understand it, rationalise it, and try to explain it.

If someone holds the opposite belief, it will most definitely fall on deaf ears. Because the premise (the accepted belief) dictates/restricts the means in which to define it, or in other words the scope of possibilities available to explain it to another.

Without restriction there would be no contradiction between opposing beliefs. The opposition defines strictly the domain of each side.

It's like another example where I (someone who has fallen in love in the past) attempted to explain the existence or sensation of romantic "love" to a dear friend who had never experienced it yet.
They were sure it didn't exist. Whilst I was positive that it did. But you can't explain something to someone if they have no experience of it.

It's like describing the color red to a colourblind person. They will simply "not get it".

The reconciliation at the end is the fact that, new experiences open the mind to new beliefs. And whilst one may not be able to describe their belief to another, perhaps they will come to understand it on their own accord, with time.

Why have you come? — Benj96

To expose my beliefs and thoughts to scrutiny. It makes me sharper. I hope to do the same for others.

To engage in the process of learning, I guess.

I find most of the questions to be the wrong questions, so the answers tend to be pretty meaningless to me. — Noble Dust

:up:

I come here because I have a naive love of knowledge. I don’t come here very often since the meticulous arguing and the logic part of philosophy is so boring, I hate details, when I hear people say something, I look for the wow in what they say, not the logical fallacies,

I love to read books by philosophers aimed at the “intelligent layman”. I sometime read philo papers as a Sudoku, but sudokus are way more fun.

For guys like me, there’s nowhere to go.

But threads like yours here, is what makes me come here. And I love reading the answers.

But threads like yours here, is what makes me come here. And I love reading the answers. — Ansiktsburk

Well I'm glad I could offer something of interest to you and same, I really enjoy the answers, they place me in reference/context to others. As I compare what I think to what they think and wonder as to the cause of the differences. Where they come from, what they might mean, what insights can they offer?

That way I learn both about myself and about them.

To engage in the process of learning, I guess. — Mikie

Sometimes on the forum I find myself in a process of unlearning. Old habits die hard but they can die all the same.

I think attaining accurate knowledge is about simulataneously learning (accepting knew concepts) and unlearning (rejecting previously held beliefs that from this new reference point seem naive or absentmindedly conditioned).

I think attaining accurate knowledge is about simulataneously learning (accepting knew concepts) and unlearning — Benj96

Absolutely.

My journey to this forum: atheism $\to$ logic $\to$ philosophy $\to$ TPF.

What draws one to philosophy? — Benj96

"Wonder" did it for the ancients, "faith" did it for medievals, but for us moderns I think despair – intractable, infinite, perplexity – is the draw. (NB: Zapffe-Camus name it the absurd.)

What is yo[ur] motive to seek out and participate in this forum?

I suppose this sums up why I'm (still) here:

I'm a dialectical rodeo clown, but only when there's a lot of running bulls*** to corral; like Diogenes with his lantern, I loiter on these fora looking for a few well-informed folks to reason with and learn from ... — 180 Proof

Why have you come? — Benj96

Again, from old posts ...

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself a

freethinker (offline) &
dialectical rodeo clown (online) — 180 Proof

... thus, the mise-en-scene of TPF"s Commedia

"What is your aim in philosophy? – To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle."
— Witty, PI §309

Against stupidity philosophers (i.e. sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' and/or 'dialectical rodeo-clowns') struggle in vain. — 180 Proof

:smirk:

My journey to this forum: atheism →→ logic →→ philosophy →→ TPF. — Agent Smith

Succinct. :up:

My path: stupidity?! —> absurdism —> freethought —> pragmatism-naturalism —> TPF ...

sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' — 180 Proof

Wow, that's a great term. What do you have in mind here? The embodied cognition crowd?

Nope. Just latter-day Socratics (e.g. Absurdists, CBTists, satirists).

Initially to see what mathematics ideas crop up in a philosophy crowd.

That's been entertaining.

I have learned a lot from people who have read the same works I did. I have been encouraged to read new works as a result.

Sometimes the arguments involve matters I am concerned about. Continuing in a dialogue is better than seeking a judgement that would end it for all time. Unless the question was stupid.

The shape of every TPF discussion, ever.

Edit to add: I don't mean to say something stupid happens all the time. Only that dismissal of arguments is not an argument very often.

Evolution favours efficiency: maximum benefit for minimum effort compared to the next best alternative. This explains why the best adapted animal on the planet imports garlic from the other side of the world rather than growing it in his garden. It's cheaper and more efficient that way.

What draws one to philosophy?
— Benj96
"Wonder" did it for the ancients, "faith" did it for medievals, but for us I think despair – intractable, infinite, perplexity – is the draw. (NB: Zapffe-Camus name it the absurd.) — 180 Proof

Wow I really like that. It does seem that the world is in an explosion of information at the moment. With the advent of highly sophisticated communications - near speed of light exchange of information all over the world via fiber optic Internet cables and satellite, new forms of socialising and science propagated not only by basic hypothesis but algorithms that are story ahead - indexing things like protein structures and findings that woukd have taken a person millenia to decode.

As well as the highest levels of average education that humanity has ever seen to date.

However, every milestone comes with its drawbacks. We also have more misinformation than ever before, as well as the ability to becine polarised by selective education.

Knowledge is abounding and being diluted simultaneously.

Great post!