Whatever light the philosopher brings to the cave it remains a cave. The transformation brought about by philosophy is self-transformation. — Fooloso4

This was my conclusion too. However the technologization of our culture is in danger of fatally marginalizing philosophical values. If it can even be called a culture anymore.

The end of 'metaphysics' is argued in certain theses. Well, there they are, to be discussed. — Paine

I think metaphysics needs to continue to inspire scientific exploration, while ethics guides technological implementation.

As for answering as a human being, I got very little out of philosophy until I read Sartre and found I was an existentialist. — jgill

Sartre is a great starting point for embracing the power of human choice. I still advocate his notion of 'radical freedom' often.

How much more can one learn by reading and rereading works produced hundreds if not thousands of years ago? — jgill

How much is the quality of the experience of the present enhanced through understanding of the past? How much does understanding enhance experience?

Yes it does. It gives people tools with which to explore their beliefs, views, values, underlying assumptions, etc in a way that science alone can't. While science indeed gives us a tool to explore the world in ways philosophy alone can't. Both are needed. — PhilosophyRunner

:up:

Of course it does tend to overflow itself and produce valuable things — Leontiskos

Well that is the question, are there valuable things of which it is inherently productive. I was suggesting at a social level that it produces 'philosophical minds' that live and act in philosophical ways. And wondering if there is some kind of ongoing evolution of social consciousness measurable by some philosophical yardstick.

Definitely. Ecology values diversity and native species. Economics values wealth creation. Psychology values psychological "norms". — LuckyR

Hmm. Are you suggesting these are sciences where "value" enters in? Because, just to continue the science/philosophy dichotomy, you could call those the quantitative measures of those fields. Stipulating the psychology is of the behaviourist flavour. Valuing psychological evidence isn't evidence of the existence of 'ought' type values.

Yes. It is the old is/ought divide. Philosophy is uniquely useful on the ought side. — PhilosophyRunner

And does it exhibit a clear benefit in developing minds the way that science does in developing technologies? Is such a progressive evolution even happening at all? Presumably we are continuously becoming "more" than we were. As the nature of the world we inhabit expands along with our scientific awareness of it, our adaptation to the world must also proceed.

While not every student can contribute to the body of knowledge of philosophy in a significant way, the body of knowledge of philosophy can contribute to the constitution of each student, as a human being. So philosophical principles and methods can shape an individual's nature and be reflected in an individual's actions, thereby helping to shape society. So, in a practical sense, philosophy can shape the world.

The true value of philosophy is how much we allow ourselves to be shaped by it.

Perhaps Philosophy pertains uniquely to the "value" sphere, as it is so commonly contrasted with science. Is there an ethical correlate to the scientific method, whose application can be seen to have fostered the development of the most enlightened minds?

Would you say that the various disciplines that have grown out of philosophy are ‘applied’ forms of philosophy? If so, what exactly is it they are applying? This I would say is the role of philosophy. Other disciplines are founded on presuppositions that are built into their chosen vocabularies, but those presuppositions remain outside of their purview of examination. — Joshs

Are you saying that there are fundamental philosophical principles that are "built-in" to sciences, for example? Because I am thinking that sciences uniquely identified themselves with the emergence of the scientific method, which maybe is an extension of philosophy in one sense (in the sense that it clearly emerged from that more "comprehensive" type of knowledge that predated it). But merits its own identity owing to the meteoric rise of technology coinciding with its level of adoption and application.

I don't think they're trying to overconsume, it's just that their world is configured to keep them in that state. — frank

Tomato tomato.

I think that arguing about the nature of the problem when the solution is the same describes exactly the fragmentation of political will by diversity of interests. Everyone has a pet peeve, so there are themes of protest identifying different groups. Each is aiming for a "better world," and their overall set of priorities are probably the same, except they disagree as to "what is to be fixed first." When if they pooled their collective agreements, they could realize the political will to address all the problems collectively, which is probably a whole lot more realistic as they are all interrelated.

Never mind that the entire continent of Africa emits only 4% of global emissions a one ton per capita. — Mikie

What does this have to do with anything? Obviously, the problem has to be addressed where it is created. If I read you right, you would advocate for a campaign of public awareness to drive political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly.

Every year I'm amazed at the demand for air conditioning. People make their dwellings colder in the summer than they would be in the winter. — frank

It's almost like they enjoy the exaggerated sensation of being in control.

To come here and announce “Give me any solution and I will tell you why it won’t work,” use an example of cows, declare “good luck with that,” and expect to be taken seriously, is exactly the issue. Whether it’s truly trolling or just childishness, I don’t know. — Mikie

Granted, that last part was really poor. However, up until then I thought the points were legitimate. The best argument becomes meaningless when it declares itself unassailable.

Who are you and why are you trolling this thread? — Mikie

People have to reduce their demand to have any hope of "solving" climate change. And even that might not be enough. — Agree to Disagree

Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll. Sounds more like an ad hominem to me.

My wife and I did a little excursion for lunch on Sunday (my Mini got 60 mpg on the trip so I don't feel so bad about that). On the way home we stopped at a rural antique store. I parked next to a giant black Ford truck that was idling, nobody in it. The people were walking around browsing the store. They just left it idling for 20 minutes or more to keep the AC going. It wasn't even that hot out.

People and their inherent stupidity, their willingness to project problems on others while completely ignoring their own culpability, are definitely at the heart of this problem. However if a majority of people won't wake up to the fact that they are causing the problem, they might still get behind initiatives to curtail production through increasingly stringent regulations, thereby indirectly regulating their own behaviours.

Then how do you account for the hard problem of interaction? — Bob Ross

To really appreciate it, a good grasp of systems theory is essential. However, I can offer part of Laszlo's explanation of why systems philosophy (the philosophical expansion of systems theory) constitutes a new "paradigm":

The disciplinary matrix, defining what may be termed the 'paradigm' of systems philosophy, may be stated as follows.
Holism as a world view. Reductionism exists in many forms: methodological, epistemological, ontological, radical and 'soft'. Holism likewise exists in these many forms. In systems philosophy a 'soft' variety of holism is usually espoused, as consistent with the openness of its scientific base and its
non-dogmatic spirit. It is assumed that many phenomena can be understood only by taking into account the full set of relations constituting them, without reducing them to casual interactions between analytically isolated parts. It is also assumed that it is often counterproductive to reduce concepts and
principles applicable to complex systems to the concepts and principles applicable to their parts.

Essentially, you never effect a split because everything we experience is always a "system" which is a composite of those elements. The best description I have ever encountered is in Laszlo's Introduction to Systems Philosophy (as I've mentioned before) however it's $120 on Amazon and I can't find a PDF so I can't quote it.

As for process philosophy, Whitehead and Bergson are probably the best examples. Considering "events" as metaphysically primary is essentially a precursor to the paradigm-shift to a systems-theoretic metaphysics.

What about the fact that consciousness is dependent upon the physical brain? — chiknsld

Conscious presents itself in our experience of it through the physical brain, as well as through the mechanisms of other living beings. Consciousness is embodied but it is also embedded in environmental information and processes in a non-trivial way. Mind needs a mechanism of interaction and influence with matter, that is true. But who is to say what form that could take? Amoeba's do not have a brain, but they can learn and have memory. Perhaps consciousness of some kind subsists through and as a kind of supervenient field of quantum coherence.

Interesting, so, for you, there’s two types of fundamental things: object and subject; and so you are not a monist then, correct? — Bob Ross

I don't think that either monism or dualism do justice to what's going on in the universe. Cassirer talks about reality as both meta-physical and meta-psychical (i.e. transcending both matter and mind) and I think this has merit. Freedom and determinism, matter and mind, form and substance, being and non-being. Reality seems fraught with antinomies, but these seem more like poles or extremes of a dialectic which mutually condition and require each other. I just posted a link to a book in my old thread on science and metaphysics that purports to be a systems theoretic metaphysics. If you view the universe from a systems theoretic perspective, traditional problems are not solved so much as they do not appear as problems. For me, it is the logical and scientific presentation of a process ontology.

To your second sentence, I don’t think that everything that I am is in relation to something else but, rather, my knowledge of myself requires an other; — Bob Ross

All intellection takes place in and through language, and language is emphatically a social construct/phenomenon. I just cant fathom the idea of a 'disconnected mind.'

But I thought your original proposal more interesting because it makes meaning dependent on even more than context, but also one's knowledge of a particular language. So this multiplies meanings even more while sensibly saying how it is they are multiplied -- since meanings are changed by what they are couched in, not just the meanings that are around the sentence but even the knowledge of a speaker is relevant. — Moliere

Yes, there really are no "generic usages," (unless perhaps media is contributing to the creation of a "generic mind"). But maybe not all nuance is important.

:up:
Why wretched? I thought it a good read.

Minimally, to be a subject is to be a subject "of" something. I am a subject of perceptions, of ideas, of feelings. So while the "ordering principle" of objectivity is subjective (Kant) knowledge of objectivity arises with experience. Hence, the "synthetic a priori" which yokes the two.

For me, any attempt to conceptualize a pure subjectivity falls into the black hole of idealistic-solipsism. Everything that I "am" is in "relation to...." and anything that I stand in relation to must be other than what I am. This seems fairly self-evident (to me). Similarly, for objectivity, something is an object "for a subject".

Ontologically, I am speculating that perhaps the most fundamental characterization of reality is that of subjective and objective. We literally cannot think what a universe minus subjectivity would be because that would be a universe minus thought, which cannot be thought. Even if we tried to imagine it, that would still be an imagined universe. It is a variety of panpsychism for sure.

Your opening sentence is a bit cryptic. Is it the meaning which accrues new experience, or is it the speaker? — Moliere

Yes, that was the idea. We are the avenues by which meaning accrues, but, in some real sense, it must also be external to us since it is objectively encapsulated and shared. It is a bit of an enigma. Possibly the notion of a collective entity solves this?

Meaning evolves as it accrues new experience. Barring simple ostensives, the meaning of words derives from their function in sentence-level constructs (or larger). Average vocabulary ranges typically from about 10 to 30,000 words. What any given (non-trivial) word - duty for example - means for a person with a vocabulary of 10,000 words must be different from what it means for a person with a vocabulary of 30,000 words. Except if the former is in the military, and the latter is a cloistered academic. So meaning must be complex function of both social activity and linguistic competence.

I think mind-dependence is misleading. Neither pure subjectivity nor pure objectivity can be conceived in isolation; each requires the other. Aligning with Kant, Cassirer says "the unity of the I does not come before that of the object, but rather is constituted only through it." The universe is dynamic, dynamism requires energy, and energy is the result of a tension between opposites. For a gradient to exist, there must be a high and a low, which are mutually determined. The most absolute opposition conceivable is that of subjectivity and objectivity. The quality of quantity; quantities of qualities.

An exact and scientific metaphysics
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-99403-7?fbclid=IwAR25Wl-rdb1Pt0E2Z6Xngg5__x0xcG0xYq0XwDkUuYNIhMqRq7kP2QYcsFU

Ok. And they have the same acceleration because they have different inertias. How does this not answer that?

...in fact, this is all we need in my opinion to calculate the g acceleration.
However, since the same is said for the second mass, the two accelerations will need to be added, and if the second mass is great or small will make a difference in the overall g, it seems. — Gampa Dee

But you are conflating a generalized equation for force (which includes two masses) and acceleration (which includes two masses but in which the inertia of the much smaller of the two masses always balances whatever additional force it contributes to the overall system, and so can be factored out). Yes, for any given large body there is an acceleration equation which disregards the mass of the "falling" smaller object. But also yes, the overall force realized does vary if the mass of the smaller object varies.

Indeed it is, but the same condition applies with respect to the relationship between force and inertia. The force is a composite product of the two masses, as is the acceleration.

So while m (small mass) can indeed affect the force, what good is it in calculating the acceleration if all different masses fall at the same rate? — Gampa Dee

Different masses accelerate at the same rate towards a reference mass because they also have different inertias, which balances the different forces generated.....

Yes. — javi2541997

Quality response.

Well, it is a big debate on what we consider "quality" on this site when the subjective interferes and depends (a lot) on who is the author of each thread. — javi2541997

And do you consider having that debate in each individual thread to be a better quality approach than conducting it in its own thread?

Can't believe that an OP of just two phrases is not put in The Lounge. — javi2541997

Just as you can have quantity without quality, you can have quality without quantity.

I think that "reality" is best characterized as the definiens rather the definiendum, as an attribute or universal. So it is the intension that applies to the extension, which is the set of "the real."

Because you do know stuff. Like which draw your socks are in and what your phone number is and occasionally even where your keys are. It takes training in philosophy to deny this. And even more philosophy to learn otherwise — Banno

Absolutely. Why do we have to know absolutely? I personally start from the (pretty obvious) assumption that 'everybody knows something.' That people know things is evident. The complications arise when we try to systematize what we know in an attempt thereby to know more. Sometimes it works, improved theoretical knowledge can lead to improved practical knowledge. The best example of this is the periodic table of the elements.

The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume 4: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms
by Ernst Cassirer

The Trumpet-Major
by Thomas Hardy

Cassirer considers the differences between Newton and Leibniz inasmuch as Newton's fluxional calculus remains essentially mechanical in its orientation, whereas Leibniz's infinitesimal calculus is more purely abstract. FWIW.

Yes. Good response, saving me the necessity of responding. — T Clark

:up:

If you are a consequentialist, the best outcome is the one which can be most reliably produced, the one over which you have the most control. It is unrealistic to apply something like an objective standard - the best outcome - when any kind of non-trivial activity invariably results in unforseen outcomes.

to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement. — Alkis Piskas

TIme is certainly flux