Taking the Forum as an example, it seems to me that much of the writing is neither one thing nor another. Neither creative, in the sense of Nietzsche, nor analytic, in the sense of the philosophical essay, where claims are made and then defended. I am including myself. — RussellA
My hope was to elicit both kinds of writing, at least, if with more effort than we usually put into OP's and responses. — Moliere
Please, what other things could be deduced from the two fundamentally true statements? — Pieter R van Wyk
According to Stephen Hawking the physicists are getting close to solve the mysteries of the universe. In fact he categorically stated that philosophy is dead and that the torch of knowledge is now carried by physicists (The Grand Design 2010 with Leonard Mlodinow. Since I am not a scientist, I do not have an answer to this question. — Pieter R van Wyk
1. For more than 2,600 years philosophy has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding.
2. We still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war. — Pieter R van Wyk
From this two statements one could deduce that philosophy has not been able to solve these problems - if these problems has been solved by philosophy we should not be still suffering from them. — Pieter R van Wyk
This then begs the question whether it is in the purview of philosophy to solve these problems. A valid question for sure. — Pieter R van Wyk
In my humble opinion, if we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding we should be able to, at least, manage these problems better than we are at the moment. — Pieter R van Wyk
Therefore, still my opinion, these problems should be under the purview of philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk
If you read my book — Pieter R van Wyk
The same deduction that I made regarding the failure of philosophy to solve or at least abate these problems could be made about politics. — Pieter R van Wyk
My theory (that I explain in my book) is not based on philosophy but based on a fundamental definition of a system, deduced from first principles. — Pieter R van Wyk
I do not have a definitive solution to these problems either - what I do have is an additional (to philosophy) way that these problems could be tackled. — Pieter R van Wyk
I invite anyone to obtain my book - and then I challenge you to find the fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk
I, most definitely, do not blame philosophy or philosophers for the woes of the world - merely pointing out the 'fact' that these problems have not been solved. Not by philosophy nor by politics, science, religion or any other human endeavour. And this is where my book comes in: I ask, is it not time that we rethink the very foundation of our perceptions, our understanding, and the basis of our knowledge - or do we 'pray' that somewhere along the line philosophers ( or: politicians, scientists, religious leaders ...) might find the solution(s) to our problems - before AI becomes the "next class of systems" and the human dream of 'Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternity' becomes only the history of humanity. — Pieter R van Wyk
On the difficulty of the text: I didn't deliberately try to complexify it, but I tried to prioritize theoretical preciseness which involved employing a lot of technical vocabulary that, understandably, the vast majority of readers were unlikely to be familiar with. In retrospect, a glossary would probably have been helpful, but I wrote most of this in the last week before the deadline and was still proofreading the above when I sent it (there even remain a few typos). — Baden
What we have outlined above is a warning that situates human subjects in a diachronic hierarchy between biological and social reality and a synchronic relationship with other subjects that both potentializes and creates their status as free agents. — Moliere
Is this being deliberately engineered? Yes, it would seem so. — Amity
"The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk
That said, I have to confess: I don't like Popper as a political philosopher. While his falsification theory of science was groundbreaking, his reading of Plato is a caricature. — Benkei
I think Italian theorist Franco Berardi with his idea of poesis and rhythm as paths of resistance forms a useful bridge between Schiller and Byung-Chul Han. — Baden
I do wonder if we might not now be facing the opposite risk though (although one Schiller might still help with), a sort of "fear of the utopian and principled," a "lack of faith in logos (the life of reason)" paired with an outright fear of thymos (the life of spirit/honor/excellence). — Count Timothy von Icarus
[...] should not be ruled by nature exclusively, nor should reason rule [...] conditionally. Both of these systems should remain entirely independent of each other, and yet be perfectly as one.
- Schiller, 2006, p. 94
Thymos degenerates into cannibalistic appetite at the limit and everyone loses in the long run. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This places aesthetic reason forever at odds with practical and theoretical reason, whereas I would tend to say they are three facets of the same Logos. — Count Timothy von Icarus
My pitch would be: Beauty relates to the whole. Intelligible beauty is higher than sensible beauty. Beauty is that which "pleases when known." — Count Timothy von Icarus
so that could is something I would like to hear more about too.Virgil's Aeneid — Count Timothy von Icarus
It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually. — Banno
If we apply this insight philosophically, we see that striving for a complete worldview may not only be impossible—it may be misguided. — Banno
We know what we mean by such a "background belief": It's part of our web of mental constructs, a set of propositions we assent to if asked -- there may be many other ways of putting it (including more behavioral construals), but the main point is that it is not something that requires "consciously (as in the agent) believing it." The belief remains, in this way of speaking, whether I am conscious of it or not, as Banno says. — J
Makes sense that these would be quite emotion-laden, but what about studies of beliefs about Chaucer, or algebra? — J
One still believes that the Earth is round, even when not giving it conscious consideration. — Banno
The neuroscience is not yet up to the task, and may never be. — Banno
Has that been shown somehow in the research you're describing? — J
We may not know our reasons before we act — Antony Nickles
(I'm assuming there is no scientific description of "emotional content.") — J
Hang on - again, is the suggestion that reason and emotion are physical things? — Banno
Care to fill this out? It doesn't match my understanding of the state of neuroscience. — Banno
4 CONCLUSION
It has been recognized that certain states are hard to categorize, that even though they are belief-like, they do not behave as the standard philosophical view of belief says they should. I have proposed instead that we view these examples as exposing that this view of belief is overly narrow and that we explore ways of theorizing about belief that does not force us to exclude these states as real beliefs. I have here argued that a way of addressing the problem is to conceive of beliefs as kinds of emotions, where emotions contain both cognitive and non-cognitive elements. Even if one has not been convinced, I hope the discussion has revealed that reflection on these problematic states should push us to explore belief's complexity.
If that's what sushi meant, I'd to hear more about the conceptual distinction. To what does it correspond? — J
