I think the intuition behind philosophy is something wrong with what we understand as the reality of existence, that there's some kind of deep error in the way we understand the world, which can't be mitigated by glib phrases about flies and bottles. — Wayfarer
This cup on the table is bound to my mental grasp of it being a cup, and this latter defines the extent the understanding can know the cup. But what about the irrational feels and fleshy tonalities (Michel Henry talks like this) and the bare presence of this thing?
There is, of course, a lot written about this, but the point would go like this: when we turn our attention to this conscious grasp of its object, and we turn explicitly away from its contextual and logical placings, which is to say we shut up about it and thereby allow (Heidegger borrows the term 'gelassenheit' to talk about this yield to the world as opposed to applying familiar categories) the world to speak, so to speak, the presence of the object steps forth. This is an existential move, not a logical inference, away from all that makes the cup the usual familiar cup. — Astrophel
It is existential, like an awakening, because one realizes for the first time in this discovery that one actually exists. This is the existential foundation of religion. Of course, this take practice and study, but this is the brass ring of philosophy. — Astrophel
"Thinking about a cup" seems to me a fairly good description of thinking about a cup. — Ciceronianus
Your comment reminded me of the stuff there on Ideology. — Banno
We might be in agreement here, I'm not sure. Some folk would read the above as diminishing the import of verbal disputes. — Banno
As I said earlier, metaphysics is inevitable. Analytic philosophy is particularly helpful in showing inconsistencies and lack of clarity in metaphysical suppositions.So can metaphysical investigation, though I know you’re less enamored of that. — J
One of the few useful things I found in studying management was the Cynefin framework, especially the notion of the chaotic context. See this Harvard Business Review article.That would be arguing in a circle, or elaborately begging the question. — J
Metaphysics sets out the background against which the world is ordered, and is as much fiat as observation. One can avoid the circularity by recognising this.In a chaotic context, searching for right answers would be pointless: The relationships between cause and effect are impossible to determine because they shift constantly and no manageable patterns exist—only turbulence...
In the chaotic domain, a leader’s immediate job is not to discover patterns but... first act to establish order...
Mostly people seem to lack critical thinking skills - I'm not sure it even gets to philosophy for the most part, but of course all positions rest on presuppositions which are philosophically derived. But there is a problem of attribution at work here. It's all too easy to identify a 'paradise lost' scenario, or to claim that enlightenment thinking and the loss of gods has lead to untrammeled capitalism/climate change/Trump/apocalypse. — Tom Storm
I'm starting to understand the progression from Kant to pheneomenology to other existential philosophy. It's taken a good while, but then I guess that's what I've been discussing here for the last decade or so. — Wayfarer
This cup on the table is bound to my mental grasp of it being a cup, and this latter defines the extent the understanding can know the cup. But what about the irrational feels and fleshy tonalities (Michel Henry talks like this) and the bare presence of this thing?
There is, of course, a lot written about this, but the point would go like this: when we turn our attention to this conscious grasp of its object, and we turn explicitly away from its contextual and logical placings, which is to say we shut up about it and thereby allow (Heidegger borrows the term 'gelassenheit' to talk about this yield to the world as opposed to applying familiar categories) the world to speak, so to speak, the presence of the object steps forth. This is an existential move, not a logical inference, away from all that makes the cup the usual familiar cup.
— Astrophel
which I thought a very good but mainly un-noticed post. It goes on: — Wayfarer
To address that point more directly - I think that, for me, this is where Buddhist faith comes into the picture. It too teaches that the normal state is radically deficient, and analyses the root cause of that state of dissatisfaction ('dukkha') - whereas much of the thrust of secular culture is to accomodate and normalise that unsatisfactory state of being. — Wayfarer
I don't "need" to concern myself with essences to put food on the table. I just enjoy sampling possibilities, like fine wine, searching for that sine qua non. — Gnomon
If you have "no need", or desire for metaphysics, why are you posting on a philosophy forum? What does it "add to your experience"? — Gnomon
Are you simply looking for arguments against Idealism & Metaphysics? — Gnomon
I don't see why we should take any interest in your acts of faith. — Banno
1. New scientific discoveries nullify transcendental idealism;
2. It is awkward to speak about things-in-themselves;
3. Things-in-themselves don’t matter if we can know nothing about them;
4. Two worlds argument; (which was after my post you are responding to here); and
5. 180 proof’s argument (which was also after this post). — Bob Ross
I am still saying that, just the red patch colour visual perception would be more meaningful than the scientific instrument reading of the red patch emission of 700nm to the most ordinary people — Corvus
Even if the supposed Atom images are seen in the microscope, how do you know they are atoms? — Corvus
Sorry, but I don't think there is such a thing as a "thought of a cup." — Ciceronianus
Are you not familiar with the depth perception due to parallax? Is there really any such things as a two-dimensional image? Even lines and the paper they are on are really three-dimensional. — Janus
Have you managed to find Sense and Sensibilia? — Banno
You don't see the cup as having depth? Odd. — Banno
It's a very odd thing for RussellA to say - even folk with one eye have depth perception. — Banno
you must have had the thought of a cup. — RussellA
2. It is awkward to speak about things-in-themselves; — Bob Ross
"Awkward" in (2) was used somewhat sardonically; "impossible" would presumably be more accurate. — Banno
2. It is awkward to speak about things-in-themselves; — Bob Ross
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825242The discussion here about "jack-in-the-box" is mostly humorous, but it does show that grammar and thought needn't be the same. You can't deviate too much from the word, or you many people won't recognise it as the plural of a common word.
This thread could in theory lead to a discussion about what grammar is. I come from linguistics, and I've often felt confused about how philosophers use the term grammar. It sometimes feels like philosophers think grammar is the structure of thought, when it's just the structure of language.
It may do well to note, in addition, as long as we’re “making a case for transcendental idealism”, that since it is merely the thought “cup”, there is already the experience of that particular object by the same subject to which the thought belongs, for otherwise the subject would’ve not had the authority to represent it by name. — Mww
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.