What the jury says is the truth of the matter is then accepted as the truth by the wider society. — RussellA

Right. The larger the degree or volume of acceptance or agreement, the more "solid" the truth of a statement --or a matter in general-- is.

Which makes us see that truth is relative. There is always a margin for doubt or error, however small this may be.
In other words, there is no such a thing as an absolute truth. Not that we can think of and talk about. To establish such a truth would require an infinite power of perception and undestanding, i.e. our perception and undestanding should be absolute too.

So, we can say that truth is what is agreed to be true. That is, in accordance with facts, actual states or conditions.

What does it mean to say that a statement is true? — A Seagull

Generally speaking, I could say that a statement can be considered to be if it can be proved to be in accordance to specific rules, conditions, facts, etc. within a certain frame of reference. More strictly, it must not leave any doubt about its truthfulness --in the same frame of reference-- and it can be proved to be so.
Note however that this can be hardly applied to Philosophy! :smile:
Of course, since proofs can only be offered and accepted in Science and in Law.

To evaluate the truthfulness of a statement, 1) the statement must make sense, 2) we must know the context or frame of reference in which it is made or applied and 3) assume that all its elements are well defined/understood, so that there's no doubt or ambiguity about the semantics involved. In other words, the statement must not raise plausible questions about any of the elements it is composed of. E.g. saying "This man is a stranger" has no meaning as a standalone statement. It raises the basic question "'Stranger' in what way?" Which has a lot or ramifications:

1) "Is he a newcomer to some place?" and "in what place?" (One meaning of the word "stranger")
2) "Is he not known, with no personal acquaintances" and "not known by whom? (A second meaning of the word "stranger")
3) "Has he visited a place without being invited"? (A third meaning of the word "stranger")
And so on.

From the moment we know the answers to these questions, we can then judge whether this statement is true or false. E.g. This man is a Dutchman and is a stranger in my country, which is Greece. Or this man is not talking with anyone in the party. Or he has managed to sneak into a golf club without being a member. In all these cases, the statement "This man is a stranger" can be considered to be true.
We have to assume of course that the facts involved in each case can be verified to be also true. So, there's a second level in testing the truthfulness of a statement: The verification of the facts offered as evidence! And this may seem to go ad infinitum. So there must be some agreement --between all parts involved-- at some point, where we must conclude definitely about the truthfulness of the statement! This is how court decisions are made about the innocence or guiltiness of the accused when a jury is involved.

Thank you Bob for this extensive and very informative reply! :up:

I see: are you an idealist? — Bob Ross

I'm certainly not a materialist. However I cannot call myself an "idealist" either. Besides, there are different kinds of "idealism"! And even then I cannot identify or confine myself with(in) any of them.
See what happens, here ... My reality, my view of the world --as I have often expressed in here and elsewhere-- is mainly based on experiencing and reasoning. But then, these may be considered in conflict: one belongs to "empiricism" and the other to "rationalism", which are considered if not opposite, different philosophies! So, if you find a philosophical term that combines both these two kinds of philosphical views, I would be much obliged! :grin:
(That was indeed a long answer to an apparently simple question! :grin:)

idealism’s weak point prima facea is that it doesn’t give an incredibly detailed depiction of consciousness, which it is positing as fundamental. — Bob Ross

:up: Thanks for this. It explains a lot. I thought it was only a "local", personal phenomenon. :grin:

Every metaphysical must stop its explanation at something which is metaphysically necessary, and for idealism it is mind. — Bob Ross

Nice. See, I don't know these things. I have never studied or talked extensively about "idealism", or any "ism" for that matter. I was never interested. But it is alsways good to know.

However, Eastern philosophers, as well as Western ones who have borrowed elements from Eastern philosophy, as I have already mentioned, talk a lot about metaphysical subjects but they almost always offer a detailed description of as well as examples for them. Which means that metaphysics have not necessary to be only theoretical or exclusively just a mental endeavor.

So there’s going to be a bit of obscurity in how it works not only because we have been living in a physicalist world so long that we haven’t bother to try and look for explanations in mind but also because we are trying to understand the bedrock of reality (which is certainly much harder to understand than entities within phenomenal experience). — Bob Ross

Nicely put. Yet, "obscurity" and lack of explanation for me means lack of real undestanding. And this holds for both physical and non-physical things. I always refer to Einstein her, who said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” I'm very positive in this.

distinction between being “in consciousness” and “having consciousness” — Bob Ross

Yes, I know that. Yet, it does not explain what "consciousness" is. This was my point.

I don’t think Kastrup claims to know exactly how all of consciousness works, — Bob Ross

That's fair. I don't think that anyone can know exactly how consciousness works. But there are a few I know that have descibed this quite well and in a plausible way.
The difficulty maybe lies mainly on the fact that "Consciousness can only be experienced" as I often say. And I base this on my extensive knowledge about the mind and how it works as well as my experiencing of awareness. (Still, I can safely say, as general description, that consciousness is perception. I believe that this says a lot.)

Yet, onece more, the Eastern traditional philosophy has a lot more to say on the subject. And, from what I know, all descriptions are based on personal experience --or better, "experiencing", as I say-- and what these experiences have revealed to some wise individuals. But this of course is far from our scientific world, for which "experience" means nothing.

I think he would say that consciousness is, at its base, mental events “interacting” with each other ... — Bob Ross

Interesting view.

“consciousness proper”, under analytic idealism, is not to be confused with physicalist usages of the term “consciousness” — Bob Ross

Certainly not. As I say, to explain what Science considers "consciouness", is that it is talking about bodily consciouness, i.e., based on senses, with anesthesiologists being the experts on the subject. :grin:

Under analytic idealism, consciousness can be attributed to the entirety of your being, including your organic processes that you don’t directly control, and the aspects that are within your every day-to-day experience — Bob Ross

Right.

I am also not convinced that the entirety of myself is an illusion, but can get on board with the ego being an illusion — Bob Ross

I'm glad to hear that! :smile:

We are concretely separate from others and the universal mind in the sense that two whirlpools in the same body of water are distinct but yet made of the same water. — Bob Ross

Nice! :up:

Unlike non-conscious objects, it is very clear (in a non-arbitrary way) where my conscious experience ends and yours begins if we were to touch hands. There is no illusion here.
... We reassimilate into nature, which is what I would expect and not that we are illusions. — Bob Ross

Nice!

***

That's a great and fruitful exchange, Bob!

I suspect most people on this forum are physicalists or at least not idealists (; — Bob Ross

I am certain about that. I have conducted a Yes/No poll on "Does thinking take place in the humanbrain?" and 80% answered "Yes". About the same time, I launched a discussion "You are not your body!" and had the same kind of response. I never tried again, of course to raise such issues! :smile:

Any thoughts you may have pertaining to this subject. — Bob Ross

I see. OK. As a first response, I find "analytic idealism" very interesting and quite plausible as a theory. But I don't agree with Kastrup on a couple of important points and I also find a few "wholes", i.e. important things that are missing from his theory or theories. I had tried a lot to find answers about them but I couldn't. E.g. he talks so much about "in consciousness" and I have never found a piece of information about what he thinks/believes consciousness is. No description at all. Then, he maintains that the "self" is an illusion. But then he connects it to the "ego", i.e. the "constructed self", which of course is an illusion. But then I have never heard from him describe what the individual himself, as a unit of awareness, i.e. the "I" or "YOU", stripped from any additives, is. This is certainly not an illusion!

These things are very important and they must be always expressed and clarified. Major Eastern philosophers and Western philosophers based on Eastern philosophy, always do that. With axamples and repetitions and everything. Sometimes to an annoying point! :smile: But are never left with question marks. The are very practical. And you can apply what they say immediately in life. You can have the experience of what is being said. You are not left with your mind full of concepts and no actual reality, knowledge.

See, the hunderds of "-isms" we have in Western philosophy clearly show that. They are all at the level of the mind, of concepts. And "analytic idealism" is one of them. As all the other kinds of idealism, physicalism, dualism, and so on and so on.

So, at a conscptual level, I like "analytic idealism" more than other system, esp. because of the term "analytic" which alludes to logic, reasoning, and ssystems analysis in general. (BTW, in my computer programming profession, I have worked also as a "software analyst"! :grin:)

Are you referring to the hard problem of consciousness? — Bob Ross

No. This is a topic by itself. And a huge one! :smile:
(I have expressed my views on this subject in here a few moths ago ...)

Glad to hear names like Kastrup coming up in this medium!
It's the first time since about two years ago when I joined TPF ...

Now, you have touched quite a few subjects, concepts/notions and areas in your description of your topic. So I would llike to know where does "What are your thoughts" refer to. From a few replies I read from other people, they don't seem to have such a "problem". But I have! :smile:

This statement can refer to anything, not to a moral issue in particular.
— Alkis Piskas
You're right about that, but if it can refer to anything, it can also refer to morality.
As for the context, there is none, since it is an aphorism that stands alone. — Jacques

Exactly. This is what I meant: it's not characteristic of morality. A characteristic is a peculiar and distinctive quality of something. Alone, independently of context, it cannot express, represent, etc. morality.

On the other hand, there are other "aphorisms" --as you say-- that are characteristic of morality and describe or epitomize or "sum up" --as the author says-- morality better. E.g. "Not doing to others what we do not want others do to us." This can only refer to, characterize, express, represent, etc. morality.

"The state of all human morality can be summed up in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't."
Kurt Tucholsky — Jacques

Too much general and quite a wrong example as a summation of morality.
This statement can refer to anything, not to a moral issue in particular. Making mistakes, choosing a wrong path, missing to do something, regretting about one's decision, and so on, all of which being cases in which "should" or "ought" could be applied are not necessarily connected to morality.
In other words, moral actions in or for which the conditional "should" or "ought" can be used are only specific cases, a subtotal of the total cases in which these two words.

(I wonder what this guy --Tucholsky-- had in mind when he said that and in what context (important).

What can I say?
I have been in Sparta a couple of times, it's a great place and I like Spartian people! :grin:
(I mean, things change! :grin:)

The Spartans were more Nazi like, than even the Romans — universeness

I never thought of comparing Spartans to Nazis or vice versa. Knowing that Spartans were very disciplined, tough and people of a warrior city-state, was not enough for such a comparison.
So I had a short look on the Web and indeed I found quite a few references connecting these two odd varieties of people. Here's a link with a maina and a few other papers on the subject:

Sparta in Nazi Germany

.

let's just assume that an advanced alien race tell us they have it all figured out. — RogueAI

There are a lot of things that we can assume. But we cannot form truths or foundations based on them.

And of course we can assume that there are beings in other planets with a more advanced civilization and higher intellect than ours. And it would be logical. What would be illogical and unfounded is to say that there aren't any. (Besides, this is why the SETI research has been developed.)

Since a day has passed by and I don't see any reply yet to your topic, I would like to honor it.

If some superior intellect (machine or biological) could figure out consciousness, — RogueAI

I want kindly want that you pause here and consider this: the human intellect is the highest we know about that exist in our planet.

As for ChatGPT, I believe that you must learn a few things about Artificial Intelligence, and esp. machine learning. Because it is on the latter that ChatGPT --and othe chatbots-- are based on.

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism" outside of genuinely ambiguous things that have proven good grounds to dispute. — Andrew4Handel

This is a very good point and I basically agree. I would fully agree if we could talk about absolute truth, whether it exists or not. And the word "undeniably", refers to such a truth, as do the words "indisputably", "unquestionably", etc. Esp. in philosophy, there are always different views about things. There's no one out there to tell what the absolute truth is. Also, some truths cannot be even described or expressed. They are what we call ineffable truths. In fact, there are times that I talk about something that I know well, it is --actually, seems-- very obvious, etc. and I want to use the word "indisputably", but I hold myself back. Because, 1) who am I to tell and 2) there can always be a different viewpoint about it.
Another thing that makes absolute truth impossible to tell is the context in which a statement is made. But then one can bind a statement with a certain context and say "This thing is always true in this specific case or cases". But even this can be very difficult to establish: there's always a possibility of a different view.
The nearest we can get to absolute truths and talk about them are commonly accepted truths and truths that could stand the test of time. (And, of course, there are truths which are supported by hard evidence, as in trials. But these are not of the kind we are talking here, i.e. philosophical truths.)

As for "interpretive relativism", i.e. a truth is relative, I believe it is something different. It can maybe be connected only to the factor of "context" that I talked about.

"my parents, from whom it seems that I derive my birth" — Paine

It looks like he was not sure if he was just a body (flesh and bones) created by his parents or something different, more than that and/or independent of his body. But this would require a totally different kind of philosophical thinking and beliefs.
Another interpretation would be that simply he was not sure if these were his real or adoptive parents! :grin:

"so far as I am a thinking being" — Paine

Here it is. A thinking being, having a body but independent of his body.

there is no relation between the bodily activity by which I have been accustomed to believe I was engendered and the production of a thinking substance. — Paine

OK, this is on the same line of thinking ("thinking" here being used in another sense).

"The most that they can have contributed to my birth is that they have produced certain arrangements in the matter within which I have so far believed that the real" — Paine

OK, this too.

"I, that is my mind, is enclosed." — Paine

I = my mind. That is quite "advanced". Yet, saying that, D falls in the same trap with everyone who says "I am my [ body, brain, soul, ...]" Because you cannot be what you have, i.e. you cannot have something and at the same time be that something. Which shows that the person who says that does not really believe he is that something. In this case, "mind". So, if D really believed that, he would have said "I, who is a mind", i.e., I = mind, I am a mind. Isn't that right?
(Pity, the thing was going quite well until now! :grin:)

we must necessarily conclude from the mere fact that I exist and that I have an idea of a supremely perfect God is very clearly demonstrated. — Paine

Well, the thing turns to a different direction and "terrain".

The 'ghost in the machine' register comes up when discussing a perfect God. He has used the crisis of his doubt to separate a particular cosmic order from God as a matter of belief. — Paine

I see. Interesting interpetation.

The whole passage from D's Meditation is interesting. :up:

Interesting!
"a single whole is produced", "fusion of the mind with the body", ...
It sounds like Descartes is actually a non-dualist! :grin:
Well, of course, it's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it?

Welcome to TPF! :clap:

I only want to know why life is there. — Beena

Only that? That's quite modest! :grin:

This is a million --well, today it's a billion-- dollar question. It is among ones that have not been answered for thousand years now. And by answer, I mean one that is persuasive and invariable. Because anyone can give one's opinion about the reason why. And for me, that will be, "For no reason!" :smile:

Many would have been preoccupied with baser needs for survival than philosophising. — Benj96

Yes, I believe so.

So between those seizures, comas, hypothermia, deep intoxication, dreamless sleep, extreme distraction or catatonia and blackouts or maybe dementia, it certainly seems to suggest that being continues whether one is aware at all times or not. — Benj96

Right. Life continues, in the universe. But not for the person during the time s/he is not aware.

So being conscious is at most neccesary for one to affirm they exist. But being unconscious, whilst not enough for one to affirm they are aware, is enough for everyone esle to affrim that they are alive and exist. And if they wake up, is ksot time for them but not lost being - as others can account. — Benj96

Exactly!

why, having considered that, and it's circularity, it did not lead him to a further reduction based on skepticism to the simpler statement "I am". — Benj96

Most probably because such questions were not raised at that time. See, there was no Internet and philosophical forums at that time, were people could doubt and ask questions about such pholosophical statements! :grin:

He could have doubted that "thinking" exists, no? Etc. — Benj96

I know that a host of questions can be raised and arguments made about this famous statement. I myself did that. Until I found out how D came with it. Have you read the reference?

***

Now, after all that being said, I personally don't agree with this idea. Thinking, is not a proof for someone that s/he is aware of being alive, i.e. that s/he exists. In fact, the contrary may be true: when my mind is absorbed by thinking, I kind of stop being alive. Hence the term "absentminded". We say "He looks like not being here". People in heavy grief, being absorbed by thinking about a big loss, are almost "dead". And so on. Indeed, we feel and know we exist at a maximum level when we live in are just in present and fully aware of out environment and ourselves. Isn't that so? So, instead of "I think, therefore I am", I would say "I am aware, therefore I exist". One can replace "aware" with "conscious", which is about the same thing. Consciousness is the the absolute proof someone is alive. Because consciousness means life. And vice versa.
(Note: By saying "thinking", maybe D meant "conscious" ... The concept of consciousness --more specifically, "conscious"-- was first used a little later, by John Locke, about 1620.)

Can one exist without thinking? — Benj96

As I said, one can feel alive at a maximum degree esp. when they are thinking. I say that from my personal experience. (There are techniques, like meditation, with which you be in that state; total absence of thinking.)

"I think therefore I am" is the cartesian circle, the basis or hallmark for fallacious circular argument from Descartes — Benj96

Not if you know in what context has Descartes said that and why, i.e. how he arrived at that idea.

For Descartes, "cogito ergo sum" was a fundamental principle, which was based mainly on his irrefutable --not "seeming"-- truth that I cannot doubt my own existence and hence I think therefore I am. That's why, he expressed it elsewhere as "I doubt, therefore I am".

There are of course a lot of references .. A good one is the following:
Why does Descartes say that he is not his body in the second meditation?

***

BTW, ideas cannot be examined and discussed on the level of language alone. Do you believe that Descartes wouldn't have thought of the possible circularity of this statement, e.g. "I am, therefore I think"? Even a child can think of that.

why we experience qualia at all. — Luke

Consciousness is a characteristic of life. All living organisms are conscious. All of them have qualia, i.e. subjective, conscious experience.
(Panpsychism believes that the whole Universe is conscious. But let not this bother us! :smile:)

Things get hard though if we go a few steps further and ask, "Why is there life?" and then "Why is there consciousness at all?" ...

Will Science Eventually Replace Religion? — Art48

Their function and purpose are totally different.

I recommend you to read this paper: The Eponymous Archons of Athens — javi2541997

Hi Javi.
Thanks for the ref. I just had a look. The content is too "literary" and "historical" for me. My background in and my knowledge of both literature and history are quite limited. And my interests in them follow the trend or pattern.

"Epic Greek dialect" and "Arcadian Greek dialect" ... — javi2541997

Same. Sorry about that! :sad:

Classical Greek culture, including philosophy, began in Ionia, whose name became the word for "Greek" in all the languages to the East,...
Interesting! Do you agree with his opinion? — javi2541997

It may well be so. I can't know.

The Cypriots apparently have therefore preserved, uniquely, the writing system of their Mycenaean ancestors. — javi2541997

Same.

Really sorry, Javi, that I cannot share your enthusiasm! :sad:

The issue is not that simple.
Here's what the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about THPC:

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain."

"The hard problem was so-named by David Chalmers in 1995. The problem is a major focus of research in contemporary philosophy of mind, and there is a considerable body of empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and even quantum physics."

(See more at https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

In a past comment of mine regarfing the subject, I mentioned that this problem actually sould belong to Science and not to Philosophy, in which the methods of exploring and studing life differ radically. This doe not happen in the Eastern philosophy who have kept their wisdom form their very long past. But in the West, Science has penetrated so deeply and infleunced so widely our world, that our Philosophy tends to become one with Science as in antiquity! (Re: science Greek philosophers).

Quantum mechanics, for instance, has penetrated the philosophical minds of a lot of sicentists-philosophers --i.e. who have PhDs in both fields-- of our time. Yet, QM is plenty of incertitudes. And trying to apply it to philosophical matters like life, mind and consciousness, is IMO walking on thin ice.
But evem so, it would be fine do do that, only that there should be a special branch of Philosophy for it. (I don't mean Philosophy of Science, but rather something like "Scientific Philosophy".)

You are welcome. (Παρακαλώ) :smile:

I wouldn't care about @180 Proof.

1. Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"? — Eugen

For me, it doesn't presuppose anything. It's quite generic and can include anything: any thing whatever, something, no matter what. You can even break "anything" it into its components: "any thing". The meaning will be the same.

(The word "thing" does not necessarily refer to a physical object, or anything in particular for that matter. It can be used in a generic sense. Dictionary.com offers a nice definition for it (among other 5): "anything that is or may become an object of thought". And for anyone who might think this is a circular definition because the word "thing" itself is included in "anything", let him think that these are two different words with different meanings; spelling and etymology are of secondary importance when it comes to semantics.)

2. If ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity", does this make my question nonsense? — Eugen

(See above)

3. Be super-honest guys: is my question nonsense or ↪180 Proof opinion is simply wrong? — Eugen

(See my comment at start.)

I see. Then consciousness is fundamental. It is not created by anything. This is what I have come to realize up to now, based on the vast amount of material I vae read and listened on the subject, but mainly based on my reasoning and experience (experiencing, empirical knowledge). I give much importance on the latter.

Let @180 Proof say or believe "anything" ... :smile: Your point was very clear.

As for your question about the correctness of your logic, my answer is basically afirmative. :smile:
(Of course there are some things to be cleared, e.g. "fundamental to what?". But that would require a lot to be said and a long debate ....)

:up:
Your reception of the message was perfect! :smile:

'absolutely anything you could think of". And I mean it in the most literal sense. Think of everything you want. — Eugen

Eugen, if you edit your post, let me suggest that you reduce the redundancy in all that.
- "abosulutely anything"
- "I mean it in the most literal sense"
- Think of everything you want

Actually, I think that you can replace all that with just "anything you could think of"!

Please do not consider my comment a didactic or critical one. It's only that I was quite overwhelmed by so much redundancy and found it quite annoying.

When one has a memory of an event, it seems to me that memory is a phenomenon. — Bylaw

Depending on the context and the used of the term, memory can be a process but also its product or content. Like "thought": it can refer to either the thinking process or its product or content.
Thus. we speak about "memories" and "thoughts" referring to contents, both consisting mainly of mental images, often accompanied with sense objects other than visual, considered also as mental representations of actual events, incidents, etc.

If we had a world where every discipline was strictly confined and not permitted to borrow from others, we would still be in the dark ages. — Benj96

Good point. :up:

BTW, "interdisciplinarity" gets ~6.5 million results in Google. And "interdisciplinary" ... ~405 million!

My last comment regarding taking seriously cases like Chopra, might sound as a criticism towards you.
This was not my intention at all, Manuel.

I understand your concern and it is honest. Only that I am against trying to "warn" people about the views and actions of any person, if these don't actually harm people, and esp. if they benefit them.

As for the scientists who are against people like Kastrup, Chopra, etc., spreading around criticism against them, and trying to ridicule them, when they could just ignore them, are themselves blameworthy for their harcore materialism, when they mislead people, e.g. when they assert that even mind and consciousness are material things --without being able to prove it--, that people are just bodies and so on. This does actually much more harm to humanity than the unconventional theories and practices of persons whose purpose is trying to find truths about things that conventional science can't, independently of whether they succeed or not. These people are at least in the right path, contrarily to conventional Science, which actually has no path at all to follow regarding these subjects.

I'm sure you see my point, even if you disagree. :smile:

Is Charles Manson philosophy? — Manuel

I don't see the relevance.

But you should care if someone like Chopra is taken seriously. It degrades the quality of ones thought. — Manuel

Taken seriously by whom? OK, certainly not by scientists. But certainly yes, by his colleagues. And also by thousands of people, who have benefitted from his talks, books and medicine.
Why should I care or be against him? Only those who are jealous of and hate successful people can be. And people whose ego is inflated. And people who are prisonners of their own beliefs and cannot accept something different.

[Re: What are these standards of quality?]I'd say intellectual honesty and coherence at a basic level. — Manuel

This is just a personal and offhand description. So, there are no standards.

[Re: Who is to judge?] The community of people engaged in philosophy, especially those who make contributions to the tradition. — Manuel

Where is that community? Who and how many of them are there? What and where can one find what does the majority of such community say about Chopra?
Does this majority also discard Kastrup, Kafatos and other sientists-philosophers who are engaged in philosophy of the mind, and consciousness in particular?
All these questions are of course rhetorical. I just want to show that one cannot put boundaries to any philosophy that talks about these subjects. If that were the case, 80% of the known philosophers would be considered outside boundaries.

it sounds as if you would be willing to allow everything in. — Manuel

I don't remember having ever not allowed anything to come in philosophy as long as it is pertinent with philosophy. Doing such a thing, would be too arrogant and stupid.
When I was much younger, there was a very nice, old man in our neighborhood who was doing errands for people in the area. He was walking on the street almost faster than me. So, once I asked hem what he does that keeps him so healthy and strong. He replied to me "Love yousrself". I was astonished to hear such a answer from a semi-literate person. An answer that came from a honest and purely personal experience. It had inspired me more than a lot of philosophical ideas I had read at the time.
Experience: something that not only all scientists but also most philosophers lack.

Note:
1) I'm not defending Chopra or his work. Maybe I shouldn't include him among the "representatives" of the new "wave", current or trend in philosophy. I don't know. And, honestly, I don't much care.
2) No one among the persons I mentioned represents me. I only wanted to mention that there's a new current in philosophy represented by prominent personalities.

Philosophy should be open to all who want to participate, but it should have minimum standards of quality, — Manuel

What are these standards of quality?
And who is to judge if a certain philosophy satisfies such (supposedly existing) standards of quality?

I never suggested following any of the persons I mentioned. I don't like or agree with some of them myself. I just gave some names to show that there are new philosophical views on the table. This was my main point, not to promote people of these new trends. The view of whom, besides differ a lot between them.

As for Deepak Chopra especially, he is a very respected bestselling author and medical scientist, known worldwide (8 million results in Google). He participates in a lot of scientific-philosophical panels, together with other prominent personalities.
You cannot discard a person's contributions to the world by pointing out his lack of solid scientic description and use of QM theory. This is a very narrow viewpoint. And I don't consider you such a person.

I agree. I was talking about conventional or pure philosophy. Although I'm not sure if these terms make actual sense.
Anyway, I'm certainly not among those who have declared the death of philosophy, either!
I would be spiritually and intellectually dead myself, too!

Very good topic. :up:
I fully agree with the main points.

I had myself posted a topic on the subject about one year ago ("Is there a progress in philosophy?"), based on the almost obvious fact that philosophy has reached a kind of a "stalemate".

However, a great new "wave" has been spreading fast since a few years ago --although it has started since the 70s-- and expands in a very interesting and create wave. It is a scientific view of philosophy, involving esp. quantum physics/mechanics. Among many prominent philosophers-scientists in this area are Bernardo Kastrup, Menas Kafatos, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Spira, Rupert Sheldrake, etc. and of course, Fritjof Capra (one of the pioneers, with his well-known "The Tao of Physics").

So, I believe that we have to give philosophy a new opportunity for its "evolution". It is also worthwhile since it opens a wide horizon of subjects to talk about.

Even I, who is not much knowledgeable in "Physics", have started to read stuff about QM and I have already included this field in my list of subjects to explore.

Definitions have no place in philosophy — Jamal

Isn't this too absolute?

A definition of a philosophical concept might be required at the beginning of a discussion only in the case that the term is equivocal. — Jamal

1) Doesn't this contradict the above title and statement of the topic?
2) What if a new term is entered during a discussion by any of the interlocutors?

Then, when one asks someone else "What do you mean by [term]?", isn't the reply a form of definition?

Sorry, not only any of this makes no sense, it is prepares the ground for confusions, misunderstandings and infertile discussions.

Knowing the meaning and being able to define the words one uses, is one of the most important traits of intelligence.

And on the contrary, not knowing the meaning or being able to define the words one uses, is one of the most important traits of stupidity.

Many people in here and elsewhere kind of "hate" dictionaries and definitions. (I have very good and quite disappointing examples regarding dictionaries, definitions, Wikipedia and all kinds of sources of knowledge.) So I consider this topic quite an "unhealthy" one since it promotes stupidity.

(I'm sorry, but you have hit a very important point in any field of knowledge, not only philosophy but everything.)