Yep. I think the question is that useless ;)

Just checking for double standards. Like I said, I may be mistaking a previous instance I was pulled up for on another forum.

I’ve no serious issue with swearing, it is more about the tone/context for me. The more I think about it maybe it was another site entirely.

Was referring to Sam Harris and his discussion with Peterson where he rambled about a recipe (?). Basically he gave an example of how he could read a list of ingredients for a dish and glean mystical insight from it (it was meant to show how meaningless religious interpretation can be). He missed that the words coming out his mouth were an expression of values though, he was seemingly unaware of the force a narrative has for carrying ‘emotional’/‘moral’ weight.

I am both positive and negative about Zizek and Peterson for completely different reasons. Sam Harris I’d rank below both of them - quite far below them.

We’ll have to at it over Heidegger sometime. I’ve yet to find someone who can show me what ‘Dasein’ means in Heidegger’s own words - I’ve been told it helps to read his previous works, but honestly I’ve better things to do (a few selective quotes from previous works would be nice regarding ‘dasein’ if you can manage it? No else has been able to present anything to date to entice me).

But it's still good! It's like Husserl blended with Hegel and Heidegger. — softwhere

I’ve not read much of Hegel yet. Started POS, but then my interested turned elsewhere. Heidegger ... I’ve not the time nor inclination to voice my full dislike, but I still found use in B&T. I’m still working through Logical Investigations, but I wax and wane between subject areas quite a lot. Just starting to feel the ‘philosophical funk’ awaken again.

I'm surprised you don't like more philosophers. I can understand frustrations with bad style, needless jargon, etc. — softwhere

Maybe I wasn’t clear. I don’t ‘like’ any. I do admire Nietzsche for being a ‘non-philosopher’ and brutally honest, and Husserl for hesitating to call what he was doing ‘philosophy’. The rest, just the odd good scholar in between the Ancient peoples of the world, Descartes and Kant as far as I can see (which isn’t all that far).

Philosophers are just living black boxes. Once you pull them from the wreckage of humanity and look at what they regurgitate at you it’s often nothing much other than a bland drone of altitudes and bearings - with some caught in turbulence mistaking their view as ‘original’.

Yeah, I can wax lyrical too, so what? That is still my point. What use is a nebulous statement for a meaningful discussion? May as well consult a random recipe braindead-ironic-neuroatheist style (referring to the dead-eyed intellectually empty mouth farts from a guy whose name thankfully evades me - even if he does make some sense some of the time).

It could be little more than an unconscious accumulation of avoided metaphorical ‘deaths’?

I reckon it basically comes down to facing your fears and/or slipping over the edge. Stagnation, for whatever reason, is most likely a great player in turning little metaphorical ‘deaths’ into a literal suicidal episode.

I doubt it’s anywhere near that simplistic as there is ‘simple’ biochemistry involved too.

‘Crisis’ is an incomplete mess. I do tend towards a ‘phenomenological’ view of things, but in reality it is probably not much like what Husserl was trying to do - I believe he may have pushed too hard, and after him Heidegger and the likes went even more off-piste.

I have certainly come across many who are far too willing to dismiss Husserl. I cannot blame them tbh as on the surface it looks quite dubious. It does require a certain fortitude to understand he is talking about self-made boundaries and limits, about the grounding of Logic, whilst being someone who sings the praise of ‘sciences’.

I don’t think I could honestly say I ‘like’ any philosophers/philosophies. Some I find more interesting than others, but all-in-all I have more respect for those that do their best to articulate their findings and thoughts, so ‘philosophers’ rarely fall into that category tbh. There’s a glimpse in Husserl, but I’d hardly say he does much better or worse than any other.

Out of them all, to date, Kant has impressed me the most. Still relevant to this day even though many wish to package him as some ‘religious’ figure every now and then.

Today I’d call most philosophers either embittered individuals attempting to smuggle ideologies through under the guise of ‘philosophy’, or scholars of previous philosophers (the later I can respect if they temper their bias as much as impose their own will).

Dead philosophers are also much easier to assess than living. The living do too much ‘talking’ and not enough ‘saying’. I think it is plain enough to see from entires on philosophy forums that a large contingent ‘attracted’ to this area of interest are generally trying to create a cult from themselves. Baby steps ... I prefer godhood ;)

A whole lot of nothing I’m afraid. The being you could just as easily have said ‘art is the meaning of life, because I’m viewing everything as art’.

See the problem? If not you’re just doing physics - by which you’re still left with the unfathomable problem of articulating what ‘information’ means in terms of ‘entropy’ (which is merely a term like ‘gravity’ which is used to describe physical phenomenon NOT meaning.

It seems like you’re trying to smuggle physics into philosophy and pass off observation as an example of ‘meaning’. The natural sciences are set up to discern ‘how’ not ‘why’ - why is the realm of the philosophers, most of whom obsess over ‘meaning’ more than ‘use’ sadly. The ‘meaning’ is more or less the department of ‘ethics’/‘religious institutions’.

I would resist making leaps of faith based on a few neurological studies. Too many many people use such items as ‘evidence’ to back up their worldview. If you look for evidence to the contrary in studies you’ll likely find just as much clout.

It is also VERY important to consider that many cognitive neuroscientists seek funding by making somewhat misleading and fanciful claims simply because what they really wish to study is so banal finding the required funds to research is near impossible. I cannot emphasize enough how much of a role politics plays in which study receives funding. After all, the researchers need to ‘sell’ their idea to less savory organisations once the first few doors are slammed in their face.

I’m squishy like a peach with a stone at its centre: holding it together. Some may have sloughed off their ‘metaphysical’ flesh, or become rotten to the core. I believe my ‘stone’ is intact and matured enough and readily able to plant deep into the earth of humanity.

My point is, what is there is discuss here? I’ll await the OP’s assessment and allow you to cool yourself in the shade of my boughs (pretentious as I am ;))

And? Again, not being dismissive here - or I wouldn’t bother posting. Just looking for something to discuss as I don’t see anything put forward for discussion yet.

So what? I don’t mean that is a dismissive manner, just couldn’t find anything to say as you don’t appear to have given any context to this thought or what kind of feedback you’re looking for.

Looking at your replies I guess it may be worth pointing out that the ‘boundaries’ you talk of are necessary for recognition of any state of being. If there are no ‘boundaries’ then there is no consciousness as we’d be unable to differentiate, communicate or do anything much at all - if anything.

Think about how you’d possibly answer any question put to you without any appreciation for boundaries. A simple question like, “Are you cold?” Would never be heard by you because you couldn’t distinguish between hot and cold, nor could you ever hear the words uttered because you’d be unable to distinguish between statements and questions - not to mention silence and sound. In effect you wouldn’t have any sense of existence and little more than a vegetable.

Maybe you’re looking for some other kind of response here? If so set it out more clearly please.

Is there a chance you are referring to ‘trope nominalism’?

There certainly seems to be a ‘nominalist’ leaning here?

You’ll have to explain further the point of this thread?

It means there is a feasible potential for said person buying an ice cream. Just because an outcome is binary it doesn’t make the prediction absolute - or it wouldn’t be a ‘prediction’. Uncertainty is a necessary part of human life.

What’s the real issue here?

Nope. I never changed the use of the term or switched context. I did point out how the colloquial use can be used to present a mistaken use of the term.

You directed the post at me. I didn’t use ‘my’ definition, merely ‘the’ definition. I’m reasonably charitable with most words, but with some - in certain contexts - less so.

I’d ask him what I’d ask anyone.

What was the biggest mistake you made that you found most difficult to face up to and admit to yourself?

In this sense it would be in terms of ‘philosophical’ ideas - but I’d be interested to hear his general ‘human life’ answer too.

On a personal note, my own ‘mistakes’ would include dismissing areas of knowledge I found to be ridiculous/nonsense on the surface - especially psychology and more recently (just five years ago) economics. Generally the things in life most ‘repulsive’ turn out to hold a whole load of juices morsels that help seemingly unrelated ideas/thoughts/questions flourish more readily.

For me the hard problem that often remains a mere afterthought for these kinds of ‘schools of thought’ (ethical models, or whatever you wish to tag them?), is the fleetingly brief nature of how one is to decide upon one’s limitations.

A rigid ‘stoic’ attitude may lead to an impoverished and cowardly life for one and an overtly belligerent and careless life of needless harm for others. Whenever I’ve looked into these kinds of ‘ethical attitudes’ I find them wanting in terms of how we’re to measure ourselves against the world and too much focus on programmes.

Basically, I would prefer to see emphasis on the ‘materials of the human world’ rather than how to use the tools at hand - what use is a tool if we’re unable to discern where, when and how to apply it?

From the comments above I believe Praxis hits the hammer to the anvil well enough in an attempt to fashion a a question worthy of wielding. That is, how do we ‘practice’ - what risks are worth the risk, and how we’re to cope with failure and success.

Again, most focus tends towards the human heart and regard for the ego in terms of ‘success’ and ‘failure’. I stick to the firm ground that ANY public declaration of ‘moral’ (be it a ‘would’, ‘should’ or ‘could’) is necessarily framed in a disingenuous form as no individual can, or is willing to, bare their darkest desires. Better to understand our inner fortitude and cause yourself some distress before venturing out with claims of ‘what is better’ - even then only the hypothetical is generally able to disarm the ‘intent’ for the ‘reality’. And, further still, too many are ready to instantly dismiss the hypothetical as a dismal fake of life.

This is quite a complex matter and I’m not trying to be oblique, merely as succinct as possible.

‘Teaching’ is not exactly something I am happy about as a term. Really the best means of learning is exposure and a steady decline in protection - an almost impossible problem of human judgement that will inevitably lead to mistakes and tragedy (that is our lot though as human being trying to be more).

You think and thought, you play with it, let artistry do its thang, then present some articulated form in hope of pushing beyond comfort yet remaining - hopefully - within communicative comprehension.

The rest is scholarship - a worthy and often thankless task! I believe the bast majority of ‘philosophers’ offer more in terms of ‘scholarship’ than instigating a ‘push beyond comfort’.

doesn't allow me to take seriously any philosophy or philosophers — Per Chance

I don’t have ADHD and I don’t take anything anyone says too seriously - philosopher or otherwise (to be honest I’m inclined to pay less attention to most philosophers, yet find philosophies interesting play things).

Have you seen some of the proposed candidates? Jess Philips as ‘wildcard’? Are they serious! Haha!

Better to keep Corbyn than utterly drive the party into the ground with that ‘wildcard’.

I was talking about experimental evidence - not something that exists in mathematics.

Even so the guy who solved Fermat’s theorem wasn’t exactly happy about solving it because it left him bereft of purpose.

To be fair this is true for almost everyone - if not everyone? Granted some are more prone than others, but it’s probably better to take note of who does this repeatedly and see if you can give them a gentle nudge in the right direction.

I’ve seen devans around for a few years here and there. They are willing to learn - not scared of making mistakes. That in and of itself is to be commended, and encouraged.

It’s good to see little groups of people having discussions across threads and feeling their way around. Some will float and some will sink.

Maybe this thread would’ve hit the mark if it focused on self-criticism more. It is important to know you don’t know. That way it seems there is some chance you’ll stumble across something useful and realise it is useful.

Kind of like saying, "my definition of 'dogma'" is correct. — Pantagruel

Not really. I’m simply saying the other person is misusing the term to suit his purpose - the definition shows ways in which the context changes and I’ve made as explicit as I can what the context and definition is.

You may choose to use the term ‘banana’ to mean ‘sociopolitical’ and talk of the ‘banana influence in contemporary art’, I wouldn’t accept this as a reasonable thing to do as it is likely to cause confusion.

This all stems from my statement about ‘scientists’ being happy about being wrong whilst more ‘religious’ types are dogmatic - as in ‘dogma’ (where evidence is seen as of no value). And if we’re to talk about a ‘paradigm’ would it be right to call religious doctrines ‘paradigms’? Are they models? I guess that would depend on how willing you are to think of the context of ‘model’ in this sense, which basically means something like an adjustable set of ideas - clearly not something we relate to religions as they have the ‘true word’ at their disposal rather than a ‘model’ of something approximating a ‘truth’ (using ‘truth’ in a broad sense here to mean reality).

That site is not bereft of idiots at all. It was set up primarily as a science site and the philosophy side was tagged on later.

I tried this kind of thing on another forum where there were topics with 50+ pages ... mostly people went ape-shit when the intention was simply to lock a thread, assess how it had developed, and then provide links to new threads that continued the discussion and advanced in some way.

Such a system isn’t needed here as most of the threads don’t last more than a dozen pages before being rehashed and branched off in more manageable directions and details.

It may be an idea to have a trail run of having a minimum word count? Generally it appears the quality here is much higher than elsewhere though so it could discourage short succinct posts and make for needlessly verbose posts.

Speaking from my perspective, I suffer with the reverse problem so it doesn’t really bother me either way. That said I’m generally not encouraged to continue discussions with people who present nothing but one line replies to complex questions - in those cases I just cut my losses and move on, or maybe try and provoke a fuller answer.

Jung is not exactly taken serious by many, but he’s had a huge impact on psychotherapy. I really like his work - what I’ve read of it - but he did himself no favours in how he openly dabbled in strange areas.

The above comment I feel is him saying he saw ‘god’ as I see ‘god’. The innate part of human individuality that we deal with and investigate by ‘throwing’ it out into the world.

He’s worth reading even if some of his thoughts are dubious. There is a lot of information in there so I’d recommend him to anyone interested in scholarly work.

Landslide victory for Conservative Party. Is anyone really surprised?

I’ve given you pointers. Go look. Start with Kant’s use of ‘intuitions’.

Nothing more to add, but I’m sure others here would be more willing to engage with you in depth.

I said ‘jab’ because I thought you may have been offended by my brief mention of ‘religion’. I wasn’t taking a ‘jab’ at religion at all.

I don’t really consider a paradigm shift to be anything other than a human item, so to refer to a paradigm shift in art, science, religious thought, aesthetics, political or anything else, is not something I can quite get my head around in the context of this discussion.

I guess a good Marxist would insist that such ‘revolutions’ are part of a necessary conflict of opinions. I think it was Schiller who said something along the lines of humans being a kind of creature likely to destroy perfection out of sheer boredom - we’re ‘anti-dogmatic’ in that sense, because I believe stagnation always instigates a revolution of some kind (by way of exploration and/or death). This makes sense in terms of a ‘paradigm’, as once everyone is pulling roughly in the same direction things go swimmingly, when things ‘halt’ - a term I’ve been very interested in regarding this subject matter - anyone can shift the momentum. Maybe that is a biased analogy though that adheres to strictly to Newtonian mechanics?

In the sense of a paradigm shift I’d relate this more to disrupting the axis mundi (or weltanschauung if you prefer) rather than just ‘psychological fixedness’ (which sounds too tame a term for a societal shift, but fitting for individual cases). For the individual we’ve learnt a fair bit about brain functioning and it doesn’t take much to see how IOR (inhibition of return) and neural priming effects our world views. The successful communication of a new perspective is what instigates the beginnings of an evidence based paradigm shift in terms of science.

Who is more likely to say “Wow! We were wrong. How fascinating!”, and who is more likely to say, “We’re not wrong! Evidence doesn’t matter, I just KNOW what the truth is.”

Paradigm shifts open up a whole new way of ‘viewing’ the world. Some are fearful of this for various reasons, including commitments to areas now deemed worthless, financial investment (the genome project is an example of that - pharma companies bought up genes to research for huge sums, but now few think such research into individual genes is of any significant use as the whole genome is far more complex and interactive than anyone had imagined). Is that ‘dogma’? Nope. That is politics, and politicking in science causes some people to deceive others - Feynman pointed this out with his famous words about ‘mother nature’ after the shuttle disaster. Newton was hardly a ‘scientist’ by any modern standard, but none of that matters to the OP as far as I can see?

How/Why do you see paradigm shifts as important to critical thought? I can see the relation, but not where you’re going. Keep in mind a ‘paradigm shift’ has adapted its use since Kuhn.

By that logic you’re saying blind people are incapable of experiencing. I have a feeling this is a bit beyond you at the moment so I’ll just leave you alone.

Someone mention tabla rosa previously, that is probably a good place to start looking. Also, the history of behaviorism and the whole nature or nurture question may help outline the conditions for experience and knowledge better.

As an attempt to open the problem up consider what you knew about anything before you existed. That is basically what a priori means. Prior to experience there is no ‘knowledge’. Much like the concept of a ‘hat’ being nonexistent in the absence of ‘heads’.

Kant famously said, “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”

Note: ‘Intuitions’ has a specific meaning beyond the colloquial use today.

I wholly oppose what you’re saying here due to the choice of wording.

My point remains the same. Dogma is against critical thought because it doesn’t care about evidence. You’ve presented why you disagree with if you actually take the word for what it means. I doubt you do disagree. It seems you were just looking to ‘jab’ at me for no good reason.

Dogma simply isn’t the same as holding bias or psychological fixedness. When people only see the world as being explained via science that isn’t even ‘dogma’. That is ‘scientism’ - a term philosophers enjoy to use when they face scientific facts they don’t understand.

Great :) tell me why you disagree

Skimmed it. Yeah, ‘dogmatism’ exists in pedagogy. Dogma doesn’t care a jot for evidence the same cannot be said of science - although some scientists, and teachers, will undoubtedly hold faster to some opinion or another (generally you’ll find this to be based on evidence not on dogma. The Deepak Chopra guys are weeded out eventually).

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[2][3] and sociocentrism. I don’t think he was suggesting scientists ignore all evidence.

Dogma:

An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it.

The point being - which I still don’t see an argument against - that ‘critical thought’ does not align with dogma. It is not possible to think rationally about something you hold as a dogma that necessarily (as a dogma) requires no evidence or explanation, other than ‘it just is’.

Furthermore, from wiki:

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

I think the bold makes my point more clearly here. Dogma is the antithesis of the above, being irrational, non-skeptical, biased and lacking analysis, and completely unconcerned with evidence of any kind.

I’m not willing to change the definition of a word to suit your claims. Scientists literally don’t adhere to ‘dogma’ yet in colloquial speech we do call psychological fixedness, like you present, ‘dogmatic’ - that doesn’t make their position one based on dogma.

I’m not interested in this kind of word play tbh. Have at it with someone else please.

No. A dogma is nothing like an axiom. Scientific method is basically the antithesis of dogma.

‘Dogmatic’ can be used to suggest a degree of close mindedness.

Dogma means to disregard evidence for or against. There is no ‘premise’ in dogma only absolute truth (that is how the term is used). That is what the word means. For that reason I cannot see how anything that can be considered ‘critical thought’ when there is no weight of evidence in play.

I don’t regard ‘dogma’ as incremental. It is not possible to gain knowledge if you’re closed off to it - that is what dogma is. I don’t see how using critical thought to decide who to believe in, can be called ‘dogma’. With dogma there is no decision to be made only rules to be adhered to.

That just doesn’t follow. ‘Dogma’ means belief without doubt. It is hardly possible to be critical if you cannot doubt. I would argue ‘critical thought’ requires the ‘will’ to be critical.

It doesn’t make sense to me to suggest an absence of skepticism falls in line with ‘critical thought’.

I’m not willing to discuss religious conspiracy theories - flagged.

Dogma goes against ‘critical thinking’. Dogma basically means to accept as writ without criticism - ergo it is probably more likely to induce a lack of critical thought rather than broaden and refine critical thought.

Those open to shifting their world views are more open to taking criticism on board. I wasn’t saying for a moment that scientist, philosophers or pious people are automatically one more than the other, only stating inclinations instilled in them.

Violent revolutions won’t solve the underlying issue. — leo

If it’s violent enough it would wipe the slate clean and allow a new system to form.

I’m pretty damn sure what the underlying problem is, but it’s hard to see an applicable means of countering it. Capitalism is in its death throes and I expect applying band-aids will help transition to something else because there needs to be a social paradigm shift toward what is regarded as ‘meaningful’ for most people.

I honestly don’t see this happening for an economic model anytime soon, and once it does happen it’ll likely be a few generations before such a model is instilled on a global scale. Violent conflict appears to be the most likely outcome - perhaps being aware of this will help people to dig to the heart of the problem.