Is that what you think I’m doing? Or is this another strawman argument? Try reading my definition again. — Possibility

Yes, I think you have been emotionally stretching yourselves rather than engaging a debate.
It is like, I said "Tokyo is not in Europe. It is in Asia. They have different weather compared to Norway.", and
youz have been saying "Oh, you discarded us, you denied us, you are a racist. Maybe not quite racist, but a chauvinist. yawn yawn"

Get over it. Read some Hume at least, and History of Western Philosphy by Russell, before coming to the debates.

Hume said "Reason is slave of Passion." Because it tells you things, but cannot make you to act. It is Passion which does it. I or Hume couldn't have been a chauvinist or any ist, when kept saying Reason is a universal tool to tell things to you, and is slave of passion. (Hume, Enquires and Treaties of Human Nature, somewhere).

We do have Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Emotion (passions) and Ethics etc.
But their way of studying these subjects are different from the religion or psychology or ethics themselves.

In Western Philosophical tradition, they investigate logical correctness of the terminology, and their sayings, codes, principles etc, whether they are making sense in logical point of view. So it is critical study of the subjects rather than learning the subject themselves.

Both achieve the same clarity, but in Taoism you haven’t thrown out half the river in the process... — Possibility

No, we don't and haven't discarded anything. What is not in the realm of reason and logic, will be in the realm of faith, or as you say emotions. I am not saying which is better than the others.
They just operate in different world, and need different methodology to work with. If your aim is to heal or educate or achieve Nirvana, you must be in that world use the appropriate way to work on them.
If your aim is to analyse people's behaviour and their psychological motives for their actions, then your must look into their emotions.

But reason is a tool to for knowledge and truths, and that is all there is to it. Of course you can decide to use it for supporting your faith or justifying your actions or decisions or controlling your emotions, yes by all means you can use it. But it would be not the be the origin of reason and logics nature or ability to able able to help you or make you doing that. The original power of reason and logic is just for your knowledge and understanding on the things, situations or ideas or whatever.

Meaningful to whom? Productive for whom? For you? So long as you ignore, isolate or exclude any challenging material, nothing can mess with your system... — Possibility

Meaningful to whom? It depends on what one wants to achieve. If your goal is clarifying muddled ideas by others, coming to logical and clear conclusions, that is meaningful to you. If your idea is just to keep asking and arguing without purpose or destination confusing and complicating while emotionally cracking up, then it would feel meaningless and look futile.

You have been denying it. You see no value in source material that doesn’t follow your strict protocol. At best, you afford them the position of being ‘wrong — Possibility

Clarifying and classifying is not denial. Please don't mix emotion into it.

Life ain't that bad. :)

cheer up

Others have noticed that the vast landscapes of human history, experience and culture provides unexpected perspectives, differing connotations, and - surprises. These are valuable both as source material to compare or contrast with existing thought, and in their own right.

But it seems you can't see that, which is a pity. — Banno

I have not been denying it. I was just saying they are different. What has to be said to get through to you, I fail to understand. You seem in perpetual negativity and denial just for sake of it.

I feel, it is better to have narrower and stricter definition of Philosophy, if we purport to arrive somewhere more meaningful and productive conclusions from the system, ideas or debates.

I intend to approach wisdom - where will you arrive? — Possibility

yeah, what truths or knowledge can you manage or expect to have from the simple saying "It is a love of wisdom."? So what?

Oh, sure. I think you are being chauvinistic. I'm happy with that. — Banno

I think your judgement is groundless, weird and wrong. :)

So, you don’t think Philosophy has anything to do with wisdom anymore? Or do you think its focus is more or less than wisdom? Not ALL wisdom, or only what can be proven? — Possibility

Wisdom is too abstract and relative term. I think it was meant to mean "knowledge", but it still too wide and loose. What was wisdom to you could look stupidity to others. And it changes case by case, and time to time. There is no such object called "wisdom". It is a word to describe someone's mental attitude or decision when it resulted in positive outcome for the person.
Surely that cannot be what Philosophy is. It was a textbook description of Western Philosophy in history. I advise you not to take it seriously or put your life on it. Because things have moved on.

Yeah, racism is a bit strong. Chauvinism would be a better noun for what you advocate. — Banno

I didn't advocate anything. I made clarification. Calling it chauvinism is your judgement from your own emotion. Not a fact or knowledge.

And ok, you mentioned "Philosophy means Love of Wisdom." Well, that was 2500 years ago, and it is really Etymological definition. If you want to stick to that, then be my guest. Where will you arrived with that?

That is how it started, but it has had 2500 years of evolution. At times, there have been many Western Philosophers who were devoid of any sense of logical thinking or system based on reason time to time due to the social and historical environment and maybe personal differences maybe.

In fact during most of the medieval period, your know that Philosophy had to hide underground due to fear of the persecutions from the religious authorities in most parts of Europe. But they bounced back with the Enlightenment period of pre modern Europe, which had many important and influencing philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Berkley, Lock, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger .... hundreds and thousands of them, name but few.

We are talking about that traditions, not a particular philosophy, which gives foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of Philosophy.

And to me, from that tradition, Philosophy is a systematic methodology of subject which is totally based on logic and reason, which clarifies on all ideas and things in this universe. You shouldn't be afraid asking any questions when in doubt, or disagree on something and everything until it is crystal clear to all of us. And from the universal faculty we have which is called reason and logic in our mind, even a child or an old man in Tibet would understand and agree when it is critically analysed and put down with the conclusion, whatever topic or idea it was, when philosophically debated. At least that should be our attitude, although it might be challenging often than said, I believe.

You seem to have been deeply confused between racism and clarification. If one says, ok your idea is not philosophy, and you don't have philosophy as such, therefore you are inferior and you should not be sitting in the same train as us, or you have no right to vote, then this is racism.

But when one says, your idea is not philosophy, and historically your part of the world has never had a vocabulary describing Philosophy. But you can still use the word philosophy to whatever idea you feel it fits to be described as philosophy, if you want. It is up to you. But from my point of view, it is not Philosophy in strict sense. It is wrong, it is illusion and self deception on your part doing so. This is a clarification. That is not racism at all. It is just an opinion and argument.

This is a serious and typical problem when debating philosophical topics with non philosophical people. They somehow misinterpret the other party's argument, and then blow up into racism or sexism or whatever isms they want, and attack the other party personally and emotionally. I feel that it is also global effect of Internet SNS age, and should be avoided. Because it feels like that they are not into serious philosophical discussion as such, but are trying to accuse and punish others using the debates. It seems now global trend, that if you hate or disagree with someone, then just accuse him of racism, sexism or sexual harassment, and he will be taken off from the society next day. This is a serious crime itself, and should be stopped at all costs. Not good.

Well, Descartes, yes he is one of the most influencing classic Western Philosophers in history. I was not talking about a particular Western philosophy as such, but the Western Philosophical Tradition. It has had many different schools of different ideas and philosophical system in its history, so you cannot say this is What Western Philosophy is, in one sentence. But I have been talking about the evolutionary traditions which took place for 2500 years, and said this is what I think it is.
I will pick out ideas from Descartes, Hume or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Plato, where I agree with their points and methodology.

After all, one of the reasons we study and read History of Philosophy and the Classic Philosophers is that so we want to learn their ideas and systems, analyse, reject what we don't agree, accept what we agree, so that we could use the bits in moulding our own philosophy.

Yes, I would agree with you. From Oriental or Chinese Philosophical tradition, the Western Philosophical Traditions and Methodologies and the Ideas, by and large might looked upon not making sense or meaningless. This is natural, because they have totally different goals, methodologies and ideas on their system. So Philosophy of the World is much divided and separated.

But if we just consider the origin of the word "Philosophy", outside of the Western tradition, they did not even have a word meaning "Philosophy". They started using the word philosophy only not long ago when they heard the word Philosophy from the West. And then they named anything and everything remotely resembled things as Philosophy.

The main difference of Western tradition is the way they acquire knowledge and truths. It must come from your own reason and sensory mechanism. The other traditions knowledge and truths come from anywhere and everywhere, and in many cases, they don't ask and analyse in critical manner. They are just told to believe things or feel things, and do and follow as told. They call it wisdom and truth and knowledge.

Now this is not just big difference but they are in totally different dimension. Do you still want to call it Philosophy in academic sense? Its up to you, but to me it is illusion and self deception.

Philosophy is a unique subject where one must start from nothing, but doubt. And feel free to ask until all doubts exhaust and the certainties emerges based on logic, reason and sensory perceptions, To me, that is a genuine Philosophy. Your mileage may vary of course.

Well, to be more precise, it’s not the same type of logic as Western traditional philosophy, but it does nevertheless correspond to a model of truth - and one that is arguably more accurate than anything traditional Western philosophy could hope to wrestle into an assertion. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t keep trying. Drastically simplified, I think Chinese philosophy highlights the practical flaws in Western logic, and Africana philosophy highlights the missing experiential content in Western philosophical discussion. — Possibility

I don't think my argument is drastic simplification. Even in Western Philosophies, each school have tried to re-define what Philosophy is, or must be. For instance, in Kant, Philosophy is mainly to limit human knowledge and understanding. In 20th century, Existential philosophers, their definition of Philosophy is, defining what human existence is. They are not concerned much with the problem of validating external world or proving existence of God, but they have been focusing on human, life and freedom.
In Analytical Philosophy, nothing is really philosophy unless it is to do with verifying and clarifying meanings of linguistic concepts. So, I have been talking from the main tradition of Western Philosophy, and from what I think Philosophy should be. It is not black and white or mathematical conclusion.

If anyone is starting to philosophizing, then first he / she should start with defining what philosophy is and should be. Otherwise, it tends to become an Art of Mysticism in the end. And if different school of philosophers debate about a philosophical topic, it juste tends to end with a piece of soap or comedy episode, unless they agree or understand, on what ground or definition of philosophy they are debating.

so your argument is that you friend the car mechanic has a shit philosophy, and hence we ought not consider Eastern thought as philosophy. — Banno

no no never said that. you are getting into personal level again. always you seem to be targeting arguments or statement from others into the speaker himself in blaming or accusing tone, rather than keep on going with the topic itself.

Just gave you an example, how anything can be called a philosophy, but not all of them are strictly speaking, "Philosophy" under the scope of the Western Philosophical Tradition.

My friend is a car mechanic, and I don't take him seriously for his alleged DC philosophical system. In fact, I think he just talks whole load of bs. To him, it is the best philosophy in history. I don't even know what it is about.

As I said, you can call whatever, as Philosophy. But from the Western Academic Philosophical point of view, I feel that they are just type of mysticism.

I know a friend of mine saying he has his unique view of his own life, and he calls it Philosophy of Dog Crap.

In the face of that, we have the widespread and long-standing convention of talking of Eastern and Western philosophy, to which has been added various other geographically based divisions.

These terms are useful; moreover, they are used.

Perhaps you are pissing upwind. — Banno

You can call anything under the Sun, Philosophy. It is up to you. But would it be wise, or meaningful?

If you are even half awake, you would want to limit the scope of Philosophy. After all large part of Philosophical tradition and methodology is about limiting and defining.

And you seem having symptomatic habit of falling back into personal attacks while debating philosophical topics.

I don't believe I was pissing upwind at all. I was just expressing what I was thinking on the topic. If you don't agree with someone, then just say so in clear and to the point, and why, if you believe it is worthwhile doing so. Nothing more or less. That is what is philosophical discussions are about.

I am not trying to dismiss anything or being egotistic (it doesn't benefit me in whatever manner or fashion in any possible fantasies and imagination by the suggesters), but just saying that they are in different level or dimension.
A typical Chinese logic or philosophical system / methodology goes like this.

"When you call Tao, Tao, it is not already Tao." I think it is a famous saying by LaoZu or some influencing master of Chinese Religion. (Philosopher)

That is not logic in the same level of logic from Western traditional philosophy. In the Chinese teachings, one has to read that, and meditate for a while, and come to some enlightenment or understanding in his own head, rather than relying on human sensory perception and material existence validation for the perception or knowledge.

I mean, if you go to these LaoZu masters, and ask "Can you validate the external world and existence of God?", and they will simply say "Well mate keep meditating until it comes to your own head." or just rubbish the question, what on earth are you asking to validate the non sense, when you must keep meditating and learn the teachings of the masters."

In contrast, a typical Western Philosophical tradition could be well sensed from David Hume, when he said "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

There’s something wrong with this picture.

I recognise that use of the word ‘philosophy’ developed out of the Aristotlean or ‘Western’ tradition. But its etymology suggests a ‘love of wisdom’, without qualification as to what ‘wisdom’ might be, or what practice might be employed in ‘loving’ it. So a broader application of the term than how we argue, analyse and know the world is well within the original field to which it refers.

Your argument is a bit like saying it would be wrong to term Aboriginal peoples’ response to death as ‘grief’, because the word never existed in the country for 40,000 years. Plus their response is not the same as the years of French and English tradition, from which the word originated. So we have wrongly called it grief. — Possibility

But we are not talking about purely Etymology here. We are talking about the origin as well the traditions, the contents and also methodology in Western Philosophy. Without these contents, the subject Philosophy will become empty and has to start from scratch.

According to your argument, even a guy who believes that if he sees a black cat in the morning, then it will be an unlucky day, should be called a Philosophy.

If you are talking in terms of any academic tradition and methodologies and historical aspects of Philosophy, I feel that we have to limit the scope of the subject.

The word Philosophy originated from the ancient Greeks, and it has 2500 years of tradition. In there, there are many schools and fields of different Philosophies and philosophers. So, it depends which philosophical school or fields one is talking about.

In other parts of the world, the word Philosophy has never existed. It was always Religion or Rules of How one should live based on their religions and political ideologies. Then they have wrongly called them Philosophy. Their interest is not about how to argue, analyse and know the world, God, freedom, self identity etc critically like the many Western philosophical tradition. Their purpose was how to live for the regime or their Religious principles or their Gods or get enlightenment or saved from this material worldly problems, just like Western Religions and Mysticism are about.

When you say Philosophy or Western Philosophy, it is vastly wide term of 2500 years of History of Philosophy. And there are many different types and schools of methods and ideas and topics they have been working on.

Outside of Western Philosophy, it would be wrong to term the other parts of the world's Religion or Political Ethics or Mysticism as Philosophy. Because they are simply Religion or Politics or Mysticism, which are not strictly Philosophy as such.

Sorry for my bad English. I am not a native English speaker, but I read Philosophy in English time to time.

To me wisdom is knowing that Religion and Mysticism are not based on reason. They are based on the belief, faith and mystical experiences.

Philosophy is based on reason and logic. Therefore we can debate on all the topics in critical way in philosophical discussion.

In Religion and Mysticism, we cannot debate the topics as we do in Philosophy in critical way. The distinction is clear, and understanding that difference, to me is wisdom.

"Mysticism is entirely emotional, entirely made up of subtle, incommunicable sensations, which are even more incapable of verbal expression and logical definition than are such things as sound and color and line." -pp. 19 Esotericism and Modern Thought by P.D. Ouspensky

When one believes in something, that is a mental attitude or perceptual state from result of reasoning or sensory perception.

But when one wants to believe in something even if it is wrong, then it is just an emotional state, which is a desire or wish?

I quite agree with TheMadFool. I feel that discussion on validation of consciousness and external existence must be done from Analytical approach. After all these are the topics of Epistemology, not Mysticism or Religion. Why would they ask and debate these topics from mystical or religious grounds, when the discussions will fall back to mystical and subjective realm, which cannot be objectified or logically validated in its nature.

If you are a colour blind, you won't see red. It will appear as grey?
In either China or Korea, colour red is symbolises blood, therefore death.
They write dead person's name in red ink. It is taboo writing living person's name in red ink.

Another thing about Reality is, that it must have some sort of objectivity. If you see something, but no one else can, and if you can hear something, but you are the only one who can, then is it reality? I don't think so. It is your illusion and you might have problem with you hearing mechanism.

If you can see something as something, then all other people who are presented to the object must be able to see it. If you hear something, then others around you must also be able to hear it. So, it can be qualified as real object or real sound, and they are part of the reality.

If you have never had sensory perceptions in your life, then your sense of reality would be totally based upon on your imagination only, which obviously will be wrong from the real objective reality.

In many modern philosophical schools and traditions, your reality is your sensory perception. They are the same thing.

The concept of reality in Heidegerrian terms is that being which appears or presents (aletheia) into your perception.

If you had sensory perception before, but now for some reason, you lost it. In that case, your present sense of reality would be totally dependant upon your memory of reality you once had. But in that case, can you say that your sense of reality at present is correct?

I doubt my eyes but I see, I doubt my ears but I hear, I doubt touch but I feel, I doubt my nose but I smell, I doubt my mouth but I taste. I only trust what the spirit witness.

What am I?

Answer that question for me and that is my reality. — SteveMinjares

Problem is that, they might be illusion or dream. How do you know they are the real or your dreams? You are already doubting about them.

And the other question is, is reality then always private? Does it then exist within only your perception?
So, if you cannot perceive any of them, does it mean that reality does not exist? The good old idealist vs. realist arguments, but I am still struggling to know which one is definitely correct.

I feel that without your sensory mechanism, all you have is past memories of reality. Therefore your knowledge on reality would be limited to that. Perhaps you can still imagine and guess on reality, but that would be very limited knowledge if it could produce knowledge at all.

But I wanted to ask you even before that, what is your definition of reality. Does reality mean the World, the universe, or simply things around you, which is also called as external matters?

They were the words making up the part of the replies in the conversation. You have the other sentences clearly indicating what they mean, and the scope of the meanings getting delivered to you by all the sentences that are describing and supporting the situation. We have been engaging good conversation here, albeit trivial and off topic.

Whereas the uttered word by Banno was "And?" out of blue without any context or any scope of the meaning he intends to deliver. When you utter a word to someone who never exchanged any other words previously out of blue, then no one can expect or guess what the intention or meaning of the word is. And? ... the only thing I was sure at the point was, that it was not a complete sentence.

But when a member is engaging off topic conversation due to the way he communicated, I would have thought it would be sensible to stay away, or just carry on with discussing the topic, rather than taking sides. It gives impression you are ganging up for some personal argument rather than participating in serious philosophical discussion. Furthermore it gives impression that for some peculiar reason that you are insulted personally, when I told him a simple message that "And" is not a sentence. The real problem of course is not whether it was a sentence or word or a piece of cheese. The real problem is the uncertainty of his intention by uttering such a word in a philosophical discussion which has to be all serious and sincere, logical and crystal clear.

Well minor sentence? If you are a philosopher, would you accept that? To be honest, I don't accept the concept called Minor Sentence. It doesn't matter who wrote it or where you found it from. Just because it is in some Dictionary site, it all makes sense and right? No!

When you mentioned about it, and wrote the link, I rejected it immediately. Because it is like saying Minor death, and tell you that it is life but also a death. It is a word but also sentence? No to me, words are words. They make up sentences, but they are not sentences themselves.

It is like saying, a brick is a minor house, because it makes up a house. But is it? No. Illogical concepts and senseless ideas must be reasoned, and discarded immediately. That is what philosophy is about.

Yes, I don't feel this argument is worth your time or mine. But I just added what I thought, not to continue but to stop, and carry on with the investigation on validation of existence and reality without sensory activities.

No you don't speak in minor sentence or a word in philosophical discussion. You are not having a pub talk with your long lost friends as if just reunited after long time. Or it doesn't sound one is serious or sincere, or you don't know what he was actually wanting to hear or say. That was not cool.

By the way, I was talking to Banna. Who are you, and why are you speaking to me on behalf of him? I wasn't even talking to you. It sounds like you are ganging up for someone, and shouting loud all over the street for no reasons.

I was talking about validation of reality. But I don't understand why now the topic has turned to lecturing and native English speakers.

I was just replying to the other person on his response to me. He was insisting "And" was a sentence. I told him that it is not. There is nothing more to it than that. You seemed to have joined this "bandwagon of native speakers of English, and if one is not, then he must be wrong". It is not even logical, or making sense to say that all native speakers English is alway correct. Anyway, it is not my interest debating about this with you anymore. I am just interested in the definition of reality and world, and possible validation methods on them.

I have not tried lecture him. I just did let him know that "And" is not a sentence. A sentence requires at least a subject and verb to be qualified as one. Being a native English speaker doesn't mean that how he communicates with English is always correct or right.

To be able to validate these concepts, you must first define what reality is. Does reality means the World? Or just external matters outside of your perception? Can you ever define what reality and World is? Tell us first what your definition of reality and world is.

That was a word. Not a sentence. A proper sentence has a subject and verb for minimum. My point was trying to point out the difference between the reality itself and memories (or other mental reflections) of reality. I thought this is a huge topic in Philosophy of Mind and Metaphysics, albeit being classic and fundamental.

Can you validate the reality without sensory activity? I don't feel that they are in the realm of validation. Because they exist in different dimension.

And? That's not a sentence?