First of all, I tend to prefer the term ‘arrange’, rather than ‘assemble’. I don’t think there’s necessarily a pre-determined purpose or reason for things to be brought together a certain way. But I do think there is an underlying logic.

Is such energy storage the reverse of entropy? — Gary Enfield

In my limited understanding of entropy, I would say no. You don’t reverse entropy, you reduce it locally in a creative arrangement of matter and energy. But the more localised your arrangement, the more entropy you are going to generate. Because this arrangement assumes a ‘balanced pot’ of known matter and energy. Entropy is the unknown change.

While I think you make some excellent points about the difference between planting a forest for its own sake versus planting one for short term use, I have to say that I do agree more with @180 Proof’s account of the physics.

In a closed system, if you assume a finite ‘pot’ (balanced or not), then entropy increases. This is indisputable. So it isn’t ‘balanced’ as such. The more we create assumptions of ‘balanced pots’, the more we will increase entropy (unknown change) in the world/universe beyond our focus.

Energy has a flow - when we measure and quantify it, we ‘close’ the system in which we are focused, and that inevitably increases entropy. We need to recognise that quantity is only part of the story.

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. — Corvus

Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying...

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). — Corvus

Right. So, despite what Reason might ‘tell’ you (without language, mind you), whatever you think, say and do is determined by Passion. - including everything you’ve written here. So you can’t simply bracket out ‘emotion’, no matter how logical you think you’re being. It’s in the very language you use to give voice to Reason. It’s in the choices you make to address only certain elements in what I’ve written, while ignoring others. To pay attention to only some of what Reason has to ‘tell’ you. This is why Russell tried to reduce language to mathematical formula (something I would argue Lao Tzu achieved with more success in traditional Chinese), and why Wittgenstein recognised the need for silence in the end. There is more to correct reasoning than logic.

I don't believe true evil is rare. It's just that we don't confess too it. Most people in nazi germany did terrible things. What makes us so different from them? They are also human. And i do believe what they did in nazi germany was evil. — Caleb Mercado

I think experience, awareness and circumstance are pretty much all that distinguishes us from people in Nazi Germany who did terrible things. I think we need to recognise our own capacity to head down that road alongside our capacity to ensure something like that never happens again.

But I don’t believe that labelling what they did ‘evil’ helps us in this. It only encourages us to disassociate ourselves from it. That is evil; I’m not evil; therefore I could never do that. Problem solved. This prevents us from recognising ourselves in people like Hitler, who would have genuinely felt that he was solving his country’s problems.

As for tilting towards evil, I do think our kind of ‘default’ - whenever we anticipate a lack of energy, time, resources, etc - is towards ignorance, isolation and exclusion. I think what we often refer to as ‘evil’ in human behaviour stems from this default.

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. — Corvus

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

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

Neuroscience demonstrates that affect doesn’t just go away when you refuse to acknowledge it. If you’re ignoring ‘emotion’, how can you tell when it affects your reasoning? Kant’s aesthetics demonstrates that we are unaffected only when we refrain from judgement. The moment we think, speak or act with judgement - including reason - we’re bringing affect into it. But this is likely another discussion.

Classifying is not denial. Clarifying can be. When you clarify the river water, what do you do with the sediment? Do you see value in it? Is it still part of the river water?

When we clarify, we judge a particular aspect, an idea or arrangement of ideas, to be the focus of our attention and effort. In your version of philosophy, we extract and discard the sediment. In Taoism, for instance, we allow it to settle with stillness. Both achieve the same clarity, but in Taoism you haven’t thrown out half the river in the process...

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. — Corvus

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...

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. — Corvus

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’.

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

I had already offered a broad, practical definition of philosophy that doesn’t bet everything on reason confined by tradition.

Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. — Possibility

Wisdom is an accurate model of truth. Arguably not a what, but a how. And love is the way we each increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this potentiality, and actualise this model in our interactions.

I don’t think we’re ignoring the positives, just because we’re focusing on entropy. I don’t know how we would see entropy as a positive, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see the capacity of life as a positive.

I do think that life as a whole plays an important role in consolidating localised states of low entropy. This creates stable reserves of energy, like how all our fossil fuels came about. Unfortunately, most of what humans are ‘assembling’ these days has the effect of consuming more energy than we store away. I agree that the importance of creating sustainable conditions of low entropy has been largely overlooked in the race to find more accessible and efficient reserves of energy to consume. But it’s not a case of either/or: whenever we assemble, we’re also disassembling. When we create, we are also consuming. And they can’t cancel each other out when we drill for oil here to assemble buildings on the other side of the world. We’re redistributing the flow of energy, largely ignorant of how it all connects and supports each other.

So, if we’re talking, not just about life making changes in determined systems, but about entropy ‘allowing us to make changes in determined systems’, then I question whether this is ‘beneficent’, because this entropy is our ignorance of how the changes we make locally impact what is outside our focus.

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. — Corvus

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? You keep referring to tradition as the foundation, based on the original application of the term, and yet the etymology is somehow inadequate. I intend to approach wisdom - where will you arrive?

And these Western Philosophers who appeared to lack a system based on reason: did they pose difficult questions and challenges that contributed to the restructuring or ‘evolution’ of Western Philosophical thinking/discussion as you see it?

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. — Corvus

This ‘Philosophy’ has a persona now? Or is it a particular species of thought? I’m intrigued by your reference to ‘evolution’, implying that there is something distinctly identifiable as ‘Philosophy’ that runs through the evolution of human philosophical thought. That it’s not just an account of how your own philosophy can be seen to have ‘evolved’ in an historical sense.

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. — Corvus

You also shouldn’t be afraid of doubt, or of uncertainty - of recognising that the limitations in our capacity for knowledge does not mean that only one of us is ‘right’, but that all of us are ‘wrong’ in some way. And you shouldn’t be afraid of ‘information’ that is not as clear or certain as we would like it to be. Because truth isn’t about the clarity of the ‘information’ itself, but about the accuracy in how it is processed into thoughts, words AND actions.

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. — Corvus

You mean utilising only the particular faculty which ‘Philosophy’ has labelled ‘reason and logic’, anyone who follows the strict methodology of ‘Philosophy’ and uses the same language will arrive at the same conclusion as ‘Philosophy’. Hmm. No surprises there. But what if this ‘Philosophy’ is inaccurate? How can you tell?

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

But what is it about these ‘traditions’ that render them unquestionable? If you were taught to follow ONLY Christian traditions as foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of ‘God’, how can you tell if your definition is accurate? Wouldn’t the same doubt apply to the philosophical traditions you follow? Wouldn’t you be expected to account for information that casts these traditions into doubt, rather than simply dismiss them as ‘wrong’? Even if it threatens the very existence of ‘God’ or ‘Philosophy’?

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. — Corvus

I’m not the one confused. I said nothing about ‘racism’ - I spoke about opinion or argument. I asked if you agreed that yours was a narrow perspective, but you’re assuming that I’m trying to eject you from society under some heinous accusation or label. You’re defending your right to restrict what contributes to thinking about truth, by claiming some privileged label of ‘philosophy’. Yes, I am drawing clear parallels with narrow opinion and argument that might be construed as chauvinist, but you’re excluding what I’m revealing as not a ‘serious philosophical discussion’ because...what? I didn’t use the correct language? Or are you arguing with someone else... a strawman, perhaps? Go back and read what I wrote - you seem to be reading a lot more into the words than is there.

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. — Corvus

Yes, and another reason is to understand and develop a universal model of truth. You referred to it as ‘genuine Philosophy’, not as your philosophy. You are entitled to your opinion, and to your own philosophy. I have never once disregarded this, or told you that you were wrong. But I will continue to argue that your view is narrow, even for Western Philosophical tradition. If you are going to argue for a universal model of truth, making claims to ‘genuine Philosophy’, then you can’t have it both ways. You can’t make assertions which blatantly dismiss all dissenting argument as ‘wrong’, and then put your hands up and say ‘Stop attacking, it’s just my opinion’. Either it’s one opinion of many, in which case your philosophy is as ‘wrong’ as everyone else’s, or it’s an argument for an objectively privileged label of ‘genuine Philosophy’, in which case I stand by my description of ‘narrow’.

The theme of Verse 20 is, if you follow the Tao, you will look odd to other people. — T Clark

I think it’s more that you will feel odd in relation to other people.

Eliminate (chüeh) learning so as to have no worries,
Yes and no, how far apart are they?
Good and evil, how far apart are they?

Again, Stenudd says the first line doesn’t belong. Too bad. I like it. As you should know, I’m a fan of the knowledge = bad interpretation. I think this line states it more strongly than some of the others. “Eliminate learning.” “Banish learning.” — T Clark

As you know, our view differs here. I think the commentary that it doesn’t belong says more about the translator’s perspective than the text, their inability to reconcile it with the flow at this point. It warrants a closer look.

I’ve already argued that the first character in this verse - jué - doesn’t really mean ‘eliminate’, but rather ‘absolute’, or to ‘cut-off’ at a point of excess. I think it’s more about recognising our limitations with regards to knowledge or learning, embracing uncertainty to eliminate worry, fear, concern, sorrow, care, anxiety, etc. The lines that follow help to demonstrate this, but I think the translation needs work.

The first line says that we cannot accurately quantify the relation between positive and negative; the second that we cannot qualify the relation between good and evil. It’s like asking ‘how long is a piece of string?’ This uncertainty is what we fear. Such desolation, such scarcity of information has no centre, no end, nothing to beg for.

The rest of the verse describes the difference between the sage who faces this uncertainty, and everyone else who appear to have full and busy lives, so in control and certain of their usefulness, their dominant and joyful ‘springtime’ stance, their vision of who they are and where they’re going.

Instead of the Cartesian method of casting aside all doubt and starting from only what we can be ‘certain’ of, the Taoist starts from the limitations of knowledge, recognising that we can be certain of nothing - that all knowledge is quantitatively and/or qualitatively relative (to the flow of chi). This is not to say that we cannot know anything - only that we cannot claim beyond ourselves to know anything with certainty, because any attempt to name, state or describe this knowledge beyond our own experience is relative to the flow of chi. And chi flows according to affect: attention and effort. It is always variable.

In my view, Lao Tzu gets around this only by extricating chi from the TTC - recognising that when it is read, when we interact with the language, we inevitably bring our own. So he takes great care not to mess with that flow: not to block or ignore, not to isolate or exclude. No matter what we think we know about the world, if we can parse reality into quality, quantity (logic) and chi, then we can discover the Way. But we can’t bottle it.

I take it you don't contest the OP? — ghostlycutter

I don’t think it’s that simple. I think our ‘blurring’ is sometimes deliberate to convince ourselves that order is created out of disorder, as in ’s nail example.

Entropy is not ‘the shuffle and achieve certain pattern part’ - that’s energy. Entropy is “the number of macroscopic states that our blurred vision of the world fails to distinguish” (my emphasis). It’s whatever we’re NOT focused on - our ignorance of the changes that occur beyond our blurred vision when we think we’re ‘creating good change’ or ‘improving systems’.

There is no ‘correct entropy’, as such. What we call ‘beneficent’ is just so in our limited, blurred perspective.

So, if I could take into account all the details of the exact, microscopic state of the world, would the characteristic aspect of the flowing of time disappear?

Yes. If I observe the macroscopic state of things, then the difference between past and future vanishes. The future of the world, for instance, is determined by its present state - though neither more nor less than is the past. We often say that causes precede effects and yet, in the elementary grammar of things, there is no distinction between ‘cause’ and ‘effect’. There are regularities, represented by what we call physical laws, that link events of different times, but they are symmetric between future and past. In a microscopic description, there can be no sense in which the past is different from the future. — Rovelli

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. — Corvus

I disagree with this. I don’t think they’re either meaningless or totally different, just approaching things from a different angle. What I think is divided and separated is us.

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. — Corvus

So, you’re saying they misappropriated the term? That they should have gotten permission from those who originally coined it? That everything in the world should stay divided and separated? Or only 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. — Corvus

I’m beginning to wonder how much you’ve looked into ‘the other traditions’. What you’re describing sounds like the error we make when we see a group of people from a different ethnic group, and are unable to tell them apart from each other. ‘They all look the same’, we say. All we can see is the way they’re all alike in their difference. Once we get to know them as people, we start to see how they differ from each other, and each have their own uniqueness. Then we can start to see that they’re not so different from us, after all. There are many ways that we’re alike, and much we can learn from each other.

I agree that other traditions do glean knowledge and truth from sources that Western tradition would dismiss as ‘uncertain’, but I would argue that they have methodologies that enable them to approach these in a critical manner. They ask different questions, and in doing so discover that knowledge is not always truth and truth is not always wisdom. That our sensory mechanisms and reason are both influenced by a third player, what we name ‘desire’ ‘fear’, ‘emotion’ or ‘affect’. And that trying to simply ignore, isolate or exclude this information keeps us from completing a reliable model of truth. As does trying to control it without understanding it, or surrendering to it. There are more effective ways to complete the model, but they require physical and emotional as well as mental discipline. Stating what is true will never be sufficiently true. ‘The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao’.

They are not just told to believe things or feel things - they are instructed to imagine and to experience what lies beyond knowledge and truth, to see how reason is formed, and recognise its limitations. They call it the Way to wisdom - not wisdom itself, nor truth nor knowledge.

So, yes - I do still think this is Philosophy in an academic sense. What you call ‘illusion’ is thinking the words are all you need. And what you call ‘self-deception’ is thinking you can acquire wisdom theoretically.

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. — Corvus

Hang on - the origin of this is Descartes...

From ‘The Order of Time’:

If we observe a phenomenon that begins in a state of lower entropy, it is clear why entropy increases - because in the process of reshuffling everything becomes disordered. But why do the phenomena that we observe around us in the cosmos begin in a state of lower entropy in the first place?

Here we get to the key point. If the first twenty-six cards in a pack are all red and the next twenty-six are all black, we say that the configuration of the cards is ‘particular’; that it is ‘ordered’. This order is lost when the pack is shuffled. The initial ordered configuration is a configuration ‘of low entropy’. But notice that it is particular if we look at the colour of the cards - red or black. It is is particular because I am looking at the colour. Another configuration will be particular if the first twenty-six cards consist of only hearts and spades. Or if they are all odd numbers, or the twenty-six most creased cards in the pack, or exactly the same twenty-six of three days ago... Or if they share any other characteristic. If we think about it carefully, every configuration is particular, every configuration is singular, if we look at all of its details, since every configuration always has something about it that characterises it in a unique way. Just as, for its mother, every child is particular and unique.

It follows that the notion of certain configurations being more particular than others (twenty-six red cards followed by twenty-six black, for example) makes sense only if I limit myself to noticing only certain aspects of the cards (in this case, the colours). If I distinguish between all the cards, the configuration are all equivalent: none of them is more or less particular than others. The notion of ‘particularity’ is born only at the moment we begin to see the universe in a blurred and approximate way.

Boltzmann has shown that entropy exists because we describe the world in a blurred fashion. He has demonstrated that entropy is precisely the quantity that counts how many are the different configurations that our blurred vision does not distinguish between. Heat, entropy and the lower entropy of the past are notions that belong to an approximate, statistical description of nature. — Carlo Rovelli

... a model of truth - and one that is arguably more accurate than anything traditional Western philosophy could hope to wrestle into an assertion.
— Possibility
So which "model of truth" do you use in order to decide that an Eastern "model of truth" "is ... more accurate than" a Western "model of truth"? — 180 Proof

Fair point. Perhaps ‘arguably’ is the wrong word.

I don't think my argument is drastic simplification. — Corvus

Didn’t say it was, and I don’t think it is - I was admitting that MY summary which followed was a 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. — Corvus

Well, Bartricks seems adamant that it IS black and white, so unfortunately there is some forcefulness in a few responses here.

Your perspective can be described as the core tradition of Western Philosophy - I’m not arguing with you there. In light of the various alternative definitions of ‘philosophy’ that you’ve described here, would you agree that yours is a relatively narrow view, even for Western Philosophy?

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. — Corvus

I can’t say that I agree with this, but I think I get where you’re coming from. Philosophy can descend quickly into pointless and frustrating argument when participants can’t even agree on what philosophy is. Case in point: this thread. But the main problem here was not that participants disagreed on a definition of philosophy, but that they weren’t willing to broaden their definition to accommodate the other in a discussion space. This, for me, is the whole point of doing philosophy. It’s the practical aspect as taught in schools: creating a community of ideas. It is entirely possible to have a fruitful philosophical discussion when we’re clear on where we disagree, but are willing to enter a discussion space that allows for alternative viewpoints.

What this Western tradition seems to do is push for a reduction, a limiting of human knowledge and understanding, in order to come to definitive conclusions that can be stated and recognised as universally true. This, to me, is not philosophy, not a love of wisdom, it’s a love of certainty - it’s debate.

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. — Corvus

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.

I think the 20th century theories are still quite accurate. What is your 21st century update for psycho-analysis then? By the way, I didn't say that the psyche is located in the brain. — TaySan

I find that triune models help me to make sense of reality. Nihilism, unism (dividing by one), dualism are all good but they need something more. Dividing everything by 3 adds some extra value. At least for me. — TaySan

I just think there is plenty of neuroscientific research that debunks Freudian theories. I do prefer a triadic model of reality myself - it’s more stable. But I find that the psyche and how it relates to the brain is more complex than this. Lisa Feldman Barrett, for one, has done important research in the relation between neuroscience and psychology, and found the classic triune model to be severely lacking. But I’m no expert on psycho-analysis, so this is just opinion, really.

I'm mostly familiar with the Christ. His teachings seem to contradict an institution like the church. But being a renegade christian is too hard. If you cannot celebrate the rituals together, what is the point? Then you better disidentify. — TaySan

I’m with you there on the contradiction. But I don’t think it’s about the rituals, either. In my mind it’s about an example of human interaction with the world, and the lessons that can be learned (and practised) with regard to a model of truth.

I don't think the teachings of the Buddhy nor Christ are specifically about survival. They are about a lot of things and they were important for us to evolve to where we are now in history. Yet it seems to me all religious teachings could use 21st century update.

Using Sigmund Freud's model of Id-Ego-Superego;
The Id is our survival part
The Superego is our moral part
The Ego is the mediator between the two

Can you say that you are solely on this internet forum for moral reasons? — TaySan

If you’re using Freud, then I’d say you’re a century behind on your updates. As far as I’m aware, the triune brain is an outdated concept, so I can’t say that I subscribe to Freud’s model.

I wouldn’t say that I’m on this forum for moral reasons, no. Nor would I say that I’m here to ‘survive’, either. I’m here to develop a reliable model of truth in which to interact with the world.

I think most people’s current understanding of the teachings of the Buddha and Christ have been badly distorted and misinterpreted for so long that they’re almost unrecognisable. They’re not about survival, and they’re not about morality, either.

No - these are examples of masculine cultural value attributed to what I have argued is an underlying tendency of the universe. Just trying to bring it back around to the topic at hand...but anyway...

If ‘survival’ is the name of the game, what makes anyone think they can win? And why? We make so many compromises in the survival game, so what is it that does survive, and to what extent can we really call it ‘survival’? And even if the aim was just to ‘beat natural selection’, to what end? To have someone say that we were here? That they notice when we’re gone? To die believing that some part of us still exists? How is that any different from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration?

What good is the losing game of survival? It’s a delusion - you’ll never get out alive, you know. No matter how hard you try, you always die a failure... and don’t think you’re passing on your genes - at best they’ll get half the information.

Unity for the sake of survival is small-time, temporary thinking. You might as well be a rock - at least you’ll exist longer. But unity against overwhelming odds inspires timeless legend. In the collective compassion of a doomed collaboration, survival strategy fades quickly out of focus, and even the so-called ‘enemy’ becomes a partner in the dance. A ‘brotherhood’ that unites in the face of certain death transcends mortality and continues to increase awareness, connection and collaboration long after they’re gone. That’s no coincidence. That recognising this underlying tendency towards unity is so often concealed within the masculine culture of war or sporting competition is endlessly fascinating.

I'd like to add the perhaps already implicit notion of the equivalence class to Saussure's thinking. Here's a concrete example. There are trillions (an infinity?) of ways to pronounce the word "bumblebee." First we can consider the billions of different human voices on this planet, and second we can consider all the different ways that each individual could pronounce the word. I think it's absurd to say that there's a right or ideal way to pronounce the word. All that matters is that each sounding of the word is recognized as equivalent to the others. So pronunciations of 'bumblebee' form an equivalence class without a privileged representative. — j0e

This sounds similar to what Lisa Feldman Barrett referred to as Darwin’s idea of population thinking, which she applies to a constructed theory of emotion:

A category, such as a species of animal, is a population of unique members who vay from one another, with no fingerprint at their core. The category can be described at the group level only in abstract, statistical terms. Just as no American family consists of 3.13 people, no instance of anger must include an average anger pattern (should we be able to identify one). Nor will any instance necessarily resemble the elusive fingerprint of anger. What we have been calling a fingerprint might just be a stereotype.
Once I adopted a mindset of population thinking, my whole landscape shifted, scientifically speaking. I began to see variation not as error but as normal and even desirable. — Lisa Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

I’m intrigued by this thread, but I’ll admit that I’m unfamiliar with Saussure (except a vague recollection of referencing him as an undergraduate many years ago), so I will read the links and return...

Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake? — baker

For the sake of unity - but it’s a case of Achilles and the Tortoise.

The term "Directional force of energy" sounds really fit for a "clear" conception of time. If I understood you correctly, This is related to motion and it's necessary function of being dynamic? — unintelligiblekai

More to do with heat:

In the elementary equations of the world, the arrow of time appears only where there is heat. The link between time and heat is therefore fundamental: every time a difference is manifested between the past and the future, heat is involved. In every sequence of events that becomes absurd if projected backwards, there is something that is heating up.
If I watch a film that shows a ball rolling, I cannot tell if the film is being projected correctly or in reverse. But, if a ball stops, I know that it is being run properly; run backwards, it would show an implausible event: a ball starting to move by itself. The ball’s slowing down and coming to rest are due to friction, and friction produces heat. Only where there is heat is there a distinction between past and future. Thoughts, for instance, unfold from the past to the future, not vice versa - and, in fact, thinking produces heat in our heads...
Clausius introduces a quantity that measures this irreversible progress of heat in only one direction and... he gives it a name taken from Ancient Greek, entropy...

Clausius’ entropy, indicated by the letter S, is a measurable and calculable quantity that increased or remains the same but never decreases, in an isolated process....

Within the reflections in a glass of water, there is an analogous tumultuous life, made up of the activities of a myriad of molecules - many more than there are living being on Earth.
This tumult stirs up everything. if one section of the molecules is sill, it becomes stirred up by the frenzy of neighbouring ones that set them in motion, too: the agitations spreads, the molecules bump into and shove each other. In this way, cold things are heated in contact with hot ones: their molecules become jostled by hot ones and pushed into ferment. That is, they heat up.
Thermal agitation is like a continual shuffling of a pack of cards: if the cards are in order, the shuffling disorders them. In this way, heat passes from hot to cold, and not vice versa: by shuffling, by the natural disordering of everything. The growth of entropy is nothing other than the ubiquitous and familiar natural increase of disorder.
This is what Boltzmann understood. The difference between past and future does not lie in the elementary laws of motion; it does not reside in the deep grammar of nature. It is the natural disordering that leads to gradually less particular, less special situations. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

Sorry, just throwing together ideas...

The concept of time, how would one best describe it? — unintelligiblekai

To say that time is a concept would imply a definable structure that universally applies. But the relativity of time disputes this. Common language use stretches the term ‘concept’ to apply to indeterminate structures such as time, emotion, beauty, etc, yet on closer inspection (eg. Kant’s aesthetics) they are ideas that form concepts under localised conditions of experience.

What is consistent, however, is an underlying quality with a logical composition. Or, perhaps, an underlying logic with a qualitative structure - like a mathematical equation. These two structures - one quality-based, one logic-based - are interchangeable in this form, in the same way that every fundamental equation of physics is essentially reversible. Except for time, which must include a directional flow of energy/entropy in a localised relation.

Incidentally, most ‘Western’ philosophy struggles to allow for this relativity of time, but I have found that the Chinese or Laozi model can be aligned perfectly with a triadic relation between logic, quality and the directional flow of energy (chi), all potentially inclusive of a temporally-located observer (rather like QM).

Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ is a useful exploration of time in relation to the quality of our experience and the quantification of time in physics.

Beer may be made from many different ingredients, but beer is barley, for even when other grains are used, barley is included. We may say figuratively, then, that knowledge is our kind of beer, and scarcely can I drink enough of it but the drinking increases my thirst for more. But what the ingredients? Which the barley of our thinking? Four ingredients: reason, belief, ground, argument. Others seem species of these four. And each of these its own distinct place and function, beyond the bounds and constraints of which become destructive.

And it seems, at least from evidence here, that we won't agree on the most important ingredient. But I will argue for reason. — tim wood

Not a beer drinker, myself. To say that ‘beer is barley’ would then lead to an assumption that my distaste for beer is equivalent to a distaste for barley, but that would be a mistake. I like barley. I’d argue that this probably has something to do with the particular way these ingredients are structured, rather than my distaste for any particular ingredient, no matter how important it seems.

If we intuitively understand what time is and yet are not be able to define it, does that make it more of an idea than a concept? A logical and qualitative structure that exists relative to a localised flow of energy/entropy, or distribution of attention and effort?

I would just make the observation that perhaps your, and my, perspective may be skewed by that fact that, as I consciously mentioned in the OP, all of us here seem to be mostly highly nerdy, highly educated, and highly intelligent. Thus, we are in the minority.

I think the majority of people achieve social cohesion through being in a "gang" of guys or girls doing guyish and girlish things. As you say this can lead to excluding people who do not win the genetic lottery of having a traditionally "masculine" or "feminine" body.

My own experiences have been quite Darwinian and being masculine, although also a pleasant novelty, has also been an excellent survival strategy (I can hear you rolling your eyes, and yes - us men do love to come back to Darwinian theories - perhaps too much). — BigThoughtDropper

I recognise that my perception of our general capacity as humans seems to be wishful thinking. I’m certainly not expecting to convince everyone to come around to this perspective all at once. But the universe is not the way it is now from a reliance on probability, so I’m quite comfortable striving for a more effective, efficient, sustainable and adaptable minority.

I’ve already argued briefly against survival, dominance and proliferation as the supposed ‘laws’ of evolution above. Note that a focus on physical capacity and quantitative value (size, etc) can be misleading.

N/A. The theory of evolution has an overarching principle all life has to conform to - it' a law which basically states that survival is the name of the game. Given this, everything that living organisms do must, one way or another, go towards ensuring survival. Now explain altruism which, in certain respects, is giving the advntage to one's competitor. — TheMadFool

This is an apologist-style justification for self-serving, ignorant and divisive behaviour. If evolution was based on ensuring survival as a priority, then we would not have evolved to lose all our defense structures. That’s not how Darwin’s theory works. ‘Natural selection’ is not a law that cannot be broken or subverted, or that is flawlessly enforced. It’s not a teleology to which we cannot help but conform. It’s a non-conscious process that eliminates ineffective or unsustainable structures and systems, a trial-and-error process aimed (from a particular origin) in a general direction that has nothing at all to do with maximising survival, dominance or proliferation of a species.

The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. And in fact, one can arguably trace this general direction all the way back past the origin of life, into the chemical and physical origins of the universe.

:up:

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. — Corvus

And yet your argument is supported by the original use of the word. Sounds like etymology to me. You can’t have it both ways. And I think it’s narrow-minded to assume that no one else could have formed a tradition or methodology worthy of the term, when it’s evident that Chinese intellectuals prior to the Han dynasty developed a study of language and logic in relation to dao, parallel with the development of Western tradition, and without needing to ‘name’ it (a reductionist methodology they referred to as ming). Or that only content considered relevant in a particular historical or cultural experience is pertinent to a universal notion of truth. The subject of philosophy is far from empty without Western tradition.

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. — Corvus

Not that it should be, but that it can be.

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. — Corvus

Not to the point that you dismiss the diversity of tradition, content and methodology relevant to developing a universal model of truth. The development of Africana philosophy demonstrates that a model of truth limited to purely academic sources of tradition, content and methodology excludes a entire history of unique human experience.

And do you agree that this puts the lie to the notion that philosophy is somehow outside of wider social considerations? Philosophy is not positioned by rationality, whatever that is; nor by traditions, but acts of volition, as on the part of these folk self-consciously building an archetype. — Banno

Yes - this is similar to the point I was making earlier:

Reason is the interaction of imagination and judgement - so no, the imagination’s role is essential to that of reason. We cannot make any appeal to reason without it. But we are no closer to a reliable model of truth without understanding how we fit in: how we get our information, where the gaps are in our awareness and how we compensate for this lack. Reason can’t tell us this. Without understanding, we are not doing philosophy, but just describing how we think things ought to be. — Possibility

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. — Corvus

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.

It might be worth considering African Philosophy as a contrasting example to Western and Eastern philosophy. I commented before that the difference between Eastern and Western philosophy was...
...one of style and method - perhaps tradition is the best word.
— Banno
Style and method here being contrasted with content. — Banno

I agree that the difference between Western and Eastern philosophy is more about tradition, in contrast with content (for the most part) in Africana philosophy. What seems most unique is articulate thinking about personhood, freedom and truth under circumstances of denying, oppressing or rebuilding these aspects of their existence.

For the purposes of this thread, the developing Africa philosophy highlights the poverty of the view that philosophy is in essence rational enquiry, somehow sequestered from the cultures in which it takes place. — Banno

I agree with this, too. I think an apparent primacy of reason is successfully challenged by Chinese, Indian and African philosophising, in different ways, as insufficient for a universal model of truth.

I'll claim no competence in African Philosophy, although it is a term I've heard and read of for a few years. The SEP article, as usual, provides an authoritative overview.

The article makes it clear that the first problem for African philosophy is its own identity. There is no tradition that might be used to identify what is and what is not African philosophy, in the way there is for Western, Buddhist, Taoist, or Islamic philosophy. So we are in the curious position of being able to watch the construction of a tradition, gleaned from the themes of cultural diversity, geographic proximity, struggle, and diaspora.

For the purposes of this thread, the developing Africa philosophy highlights the poverty of the view that philosophy is in essence rational enquiry, somehow sequestered from the cultures in which it takes place.

One can either say "that ain't philosophy" and close one's mind, or watch on in anticipation of interesting things to come. — Banno

Thank you! I’ve been asking about ‘African Philosophy’, which was mentioned and then rapidly dismissed based on one example, without so much as a reference to where the term came from. For all I know, he’d made it up.

I will read the SEP article and get back to you.

If you ask me, taking more time to do something instead of less time, provided that it doesn't change the end result, is just plain foolish. — HardWorker

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with patience. Patience is an awareness that every event or change requires a certain amount of time, effort and attention, and only so much of each is available. The less attention you can give, the more time or effort is required. The less time you have, the more effort or attention is required, etc.

Engage at your peril. You're likely to be told you're wrong and stupid. — Wayfarer

Oh, I’m okay with being ‘wrong’ and ‘stupid’. Sticks and stones and all that. It just seemed like a waste of time and energy, which could have been spent actually discussing the topic. But I’m inclined to think the aim of the OP wasn’t really to discuss the topic, but to proclaim primacy of reason, which he seems to think is ‘doing philosophy’.

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for a response to an on-topic discussion...

Perhaps the ‘expertise’ being demonstrated here is in trading insults. It’s all a pot-and-kettle affair to me. There isn’t much expertise currently being demonstrated in relation to the topic - not for at least 24hrs and a page and half of responses, anyway. An example of exercising imagination and judgement without understanding...

To have a very strong idea of being a woman, and tying that with your identity, is not the least bit controversial or troubling for, dare I say it, the majority of women. I could give examples but I think everyone will get what I mean. Femininity is something women embrace as giving them a sense of self.

Therefore, in much the same way I have embraced the societal tropes of being a man (consciously without the toxic stuff). In that same way I find it also gives me a nice sense of self. I even like to think, to bring it back the central issue of the virtues of manhood, that my own brand of masculinity can be a force for good. — BigThoughtDropper

There is a lot in embracing femininity that is about a reclaiming of potency. While there is potential for toxicity in this, as much as with masculinity, I think both men and women need a little leeway to find our feet here. Women can put as much social pressure on each other to conform to toxic versions of femininity as men do to toxic masculinity. It’s just less observable/measurable, and much of feminine potency been re-appropriated by men as either sexual permissiveness or man-hating.

I think that your brand of humanity can be a force for good, whether you identify with masculinity or femininity, both or neither. I can relate to your situation of having a physique that enables me to conform with societal tropes, and an awareness of non-conforming in other aspects that gives me freedom to consciously dismiss the toxic stuff. Others are not so lucky.

It is where women and men struggle or fail to conform to societal expectations of gender identity that the real controversy and trouble arises. Non-conformers are ignored or excluded - not just from a particular gender identity, but from any identity. If I don’t have cleavage, I shouldn’t have to compensate for it by showing more skin to be acknowledged - by men or other women. Likewise, if a man doesn’t seem physically strong, he shouldn’t have to compensate for it with aggressive or arrogant behaviour to get noticed.

I think each of us is conforming and non-conforming in diverse ways. In this way we are finding ways to connect or be seen, and also coping with feelings of isolation or exclusion. It is this diversity that is missing from our societal tropes, concealing opportunities for compassion and understanding.

We have all this extra energy after we're done with basic needs. Then we go on putting colors on walls, or rhyming, then on to novels and films and paintings.

Not being precise exactly, speaking more loosely: it's as if whatever we create is the purpose for existence, whatever it is. And often it's some strange thing we call art. — Manuel

What? Not here to survive, multiply and dominate? Isn’t that the goal of evolution?

I agree with you. I think there is a creative impetus underlying evolution - to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. And I think that art has been consolidating our progress in this.

There's a bit in Terry Pratchett's fantasy novel "Reaper Man" where a lady fortune teller is trying to get past the gates of the (entirely male) Unseen University but a wizard is barring the way. He says "my good woman" a lot in that affable seemingly harmless way which really really angers the fortune teller. I can see now with your description what Pratchett was getting at. — BigThoughtDropper

Love Discworld! From memory, ‘Equal Rites’ was an interesting commentary on sexism, too.