I am being sympathetic to your views as you can see from my various posts. — Manuel

I don't see your responses as unsympathetic to my positions.

I've take the view that I take with so many other issues: I can't know it all, and while I will not surrender my right to critically and analytically consider something, I will often suspend it. As stated in another thread, doubt does not preclude action. I'll defer to those I deem experts, in my own arbitrary and subjective vetting process. I've no interest in knowing everything. — James Riley

I agree with this.

The main issue, to my mind, is whether your definition of metaphysics is actually correct or if your using the word in an idiosyncratic manner. — Manuel

I don't think my use is idiosyncratic, but it also is not universal. A lot of people disagree with how I think of it. If nothing else, I think that leads to most of the disagreements and misunderstandings found here on the forum and in philosophy in general. Free will vs. determinism will never be resolved as a philosophical issue. Unless you are telling me that half the people in that argument are wrong, you have to acknowledge that there is value, usefulness, on both sides of the argument.

All empirical philosophy in general and cognitive metaphysics in particular, is contained right there. If the world can do no other than present itself, the fundamental paid attention needs be only to oneself, by oneself, in the receipt of such presentation. The benighted psyches diminish, making intellectual sand kingdoms predicated on them less likely, by the quality of attention paid, and the world necessarily becomes unmasked in direct correspondence to it. — Mww

I don't think Kafka's thought is a testimonial to empirical philosophy, but I do think it has everything to do with the quality of attention paid.

At the very least, even if only in humans, the agency that pays attention to itself can be supposed to contain the capacity to investigate itself, — Mww

Yes. As I said, I think attention, awareness, is at the heart of philosophy.

I see two distinctions. The Scholar (those who study philosophers/philosophies with little to no bias in a dry and methodical manner) and the Thinker (those who just observe and play with their thoughts in regards to what is observed). — I like sushi

Maybe this is my inner pragmatist speaking, but I see philosophy from a practical perspective. It helps me think and express myself better in a way that has an impact on the way I live my intellectual and everyday life.

In regards to philosophy in general I genuinely think this is one area of human knowledge where we’d benefit if the field was more polarised between the two with fewer vying to claim hold of both ends. — I like sushi

I don't understand.

But who is saying that a person just need to be alone in a room with zero stimulus or just go to the mountain hiking with no thoughts in mind? — Manuel

Of course this is Kafka's original thought not T Clark's. I wonder why Kafka thought that. Was he recommending avoidance of literature? Seeing is one thing; if you want to be good at communicating what you see, then obviously some familiarity with the ways other's have expressed their seeing will no doubt be helpful — Janus

As I noted in my previous response to @Manuel, I take Kafka seriously and, mostly, literally. I'm sure Kafka was well-read in philosophy, but in the end, is our own experience we have to understand and be aware of.

This idea of cloistered genius demiurging their way to brilliance is just neoliberal entrepreneurial values transposed into philosophy like a virus. Self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue. — StreetlightX

That's within a context of a certain experience and understanding. Everybody has these, it's kind of impossible no to, as long as you are alive. — Manuel

For what it's worth, I take Kafka seriously and, to a certain extent, literally. I'm sure he was very well read in philosophy and many other things, but at the bottom, it is our own experience we have to understand. Awareness is the goal, not erudition.

And yes, SLX, my OP tends toward self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue, although a lot of that, but not all, is intended as irony. As for "neoliberal entrepreneurial values,"... whatever my illusions or delusions, I don't think they have anything to do with neoliberalism.

Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches.
— T Clark

I mean, the irony in this statement is dazzling. — StreetlightX

Yes, well... the statement was intended to be ironic. I will add a quote here. I know it's right because it's from a philosopher:

To pursue learning one increases daily.
To pursue Tao one decreases daily.

That's from Verse 48 of the Tao Te Ching. Ellen Marie Chen's translation. There are lots of similar thoughts in Lao Tzu's work.

You're a pragmatist. We get that. Not everyone has to agree with your pragmatism. — Wheatley

Of course not, but that opens up an interesting question. Is my understanding that metaphysical questions are not matters of fact but of usefulness a metaphysical question? I guess it is....

The more interesting part is learning to think differently. Sometimes that's trying out different terms and categories, a specific change like that; sometimes it's seeing an entirely different sort of approach to an issue or a problem. — Srap Tasmaner

This is a really well thought through and helpful post. I agree that philosophy is a good way of tightening up my thinking and learning to express my ideas better. Not arguing to argue, but bouncing ideas off
other people's. Seeing how they see things. That's the thing I like best about the forum. And I have been lead by philosophers to see another way of seeing things - Lao Tzu in particular.

Again, thanks.

I suspect someone will come on here and blast away at the lack of discipline and seriousness this approach displays. And how important subjects require hard work to understand properly. But I sympathise and have not privileged academic philosophy in my life. Nevertheless, I have often been curious to get a better sense of what I may have missed. Why I'm here. — Tom Storm

Your thoughts are similar to mine, although I have been hoping someone will come and blast away. Those are the people I'm hoping to hear from. I guess I'd like to be challenged.

no one makes any serious decisions in their life - who to live with, what house to buy, where to work, where to shop, who to vote for, etc - based on the problem of induction, whether math is discovered or invented, or if physicalism is false, etc. — Tom Storm

As I noted in my OP, my philosophy, if I may call it that, is intimately connected with decisions I have made in my daily life. It's true that, for me, practice comes first and philosophy later, but writing it down makes it clearer to me and helps me pay attention when I need to use these ideas again.

What do you think the philosophers that made contributions to science? Pierre-Simon Laplace, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Isaac Newton (just to name a few). Back then great thinkers that were empirical minded were called "natural philosophers". Currently (unfortunately?) "natural philosophy" has been largely replaced by "science". — Wheatley

I make a separation between the kind of philosophy I am talking about and science. I understand what you're saying, but the distinction makes sense to me. I do read quite a bit of science. I can see how it underpins, or at least should underpin, my ideas.

Tell us, though, when ignorance was ever an indication that a job would be well done. — tim wood

Well, I'm not proud of my ignorance in this regard.... Ok, well, maybe I am. But I guess I envy people who have the ideas of others at their finger tips. I love to quote people who's ideas I respect. It would be nice to be able to do that with more than just my usual suspects.

we are never absolved from doing our own thinking if we don't wish to remain igorant. Nobody loves a regurgitator or an insistent mediocrity. — Janus

I think my "body of work," if I may laughingly call it that, shows I am not afraid to do my own thinking, for better or worse.

So the great philosophers are like insistent poets, quite often fucking annoying; but if you are in the right mood to brook the insistence, and flow with them where they want you to flow; something may come of it. — Janus

Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get a handle on. Take Kant for instance. I think he is one of your insistent poets. I've tried reading him and haven't gotten very far. But people I respect keep saying his work is central to intellectual history and the scientific revolution. Again, I worry I am missing something.

I can only recommend someone depending on what topic you're interested in. If most figures aren't connecting with you, I don't see the problem. — Manuel

Yes, but listening to others discuss ideas, especially professional philosophers, I feel like I'm missing something. I'm trying to get a handle on that.

shut up, sit still, think. — Bitter Crank

This didn't work 65 years ago when my mother told me in church and it won't work now.

I find most philosophical writing to be pretty tedious, both in its content and its style. Most of it doesn't make any difference! — Bitter Crank

Sure, but there's more to it than that. I don't get much of the philosophy that's out there, but I know there is something to be gotten. I've been listening to interviews with philosophers. Many times the guys are really interesting. They have a good understanding of the history of philosophy and the contributions of different philosophers. They usually show respect for the contributions even of philosophers whose ideas they don't agree with. The way they can pull ideas from other philosophers into discussions would be a really neat thing to be able to do. That's what makes me think I may be missing something.

I imagine my ol’ buddy Father Guido Sarducci would say....that’s just farging beautiful, man. — Mww

Yes, the Father was one of my favorite religious philosophers.

I don't particularly like advertising this but, it's relevant to the OP. As someone who has a PhD in philosophy, I must say, I think you are 100% correct. "Philosophy" is much, much broader than the Western tradition, and insights come from all aspects of life.

I would only put in the caveat that I think topics like free will or materialism are interesting - to those that find them interesting, which includes me. However, if that's not something that floats your boat, then that's perfectly fine. — Manuel

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing.

It's a gnostic thing. You wouldn't understand. — James Riley

Yeah, but what about the turds?

I need a little emoji education.

:smirk: — 180 Proof

Smirk. Does that mean you think I'm clever or a boob?

:fire:

Does this mean burned or are you agreeing with me?

And what about those turd emojis? How come we don't have turd emojis?

Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

Oh, good. A question I can answer just by providing one of my favorite quotes. One I use on the forum often. This from Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

The love that Herbert depicts is perfect. Is our human love capable of transforming ourselves or someone else? — Bitter Crank

I guess that's part of my point. What can God's love do that human love cannot?

Do people ever display exceptional love? Yes, sometimes. I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for an example of exceptional love, but it sometimes happens. When experienced, it is transformative — Bitter Crank

This makes me think of one of my favorite poems, "Aunt Celia, 1961," by Carl Dennis. I heard it first on "The Writer's Almanac" and I've quoted it here before, probably in this thread somewhere. Here's an excerpt:

People will tell you there are many good lives
Waiting for everyone, each fine in its own way.
And maybe they’re right, but in my opinion
One is miles above the others.
Otherwise it wouldn’t have been so clear to me
When I found it. Otherwise those who lack it
Wouldn’t be able to tell so clearly it’s missing
As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.
But as for the happiness that can’t be earned,
The kind it makes no sense for you to look for,
That’s something different.

Nietzsche adored Emerson and called him his "twin soul". — Tom Storm

No, I didn't know that. Thanks.

That is my biggest caveat against evangelical Christianity: all you’ve got to do is “repent” of your sin, which means you can sin all you want to...as long as you repent soon afterwards!...

...and as long as you confess belief in Jesus, you are saved, however much you may sin. James knew much better: “faith without works is dead.” And Jesus preached much better too. You may cry “Lord, lord,..” I did this or that in Your name, to gain significance among the faithful, but He replies, “I never knew you.” — Leghorn

Say what you will, like it or not, sincere repentance and forgiveness are at the heart of Christianity. If there ain't forgiveness of sins, it ain't Christianity. That rubs some people the wrong way. Not me. Although I'm not Christian and original sin doesn't make sense to me, I still think it's a wonderful thing. And it's not evangelical Christians, it's all of them.

Love your neighbor as yourself. How many who confess their faith in Jesus turn their backs on their neighbors? fail to stop for the guy carrying a gas can down the road? — Leghorn

There are hypocrites of all religions, philosophies, and persuasions.

The care offered by a professional is like being friendly without being a friend. It's an important distinction that probably needs to go with a lengthy dissertation on professional boundaries and the like. A professional offers care in the sense of a duty to provide a quality service that meets the person's needs, just as a reputable mechanic provides a quality service to a car that ensures it is safe to driver regardless of who the drive is. All very general I know. — Tom Storm

I don't disagree with this, although my engineering work experience was a bit different. I worked for one company my whole career. It was fairly small when I started - 500 people in 8 offices. I used to eat lunch with the president. Over the years, the company grew, was sold, was resold, and eventually became part of a large engineering company with 100,000 employees. One of the first things I was taught, and what made our company so good when it was young, was loyalty and dedication to our clients. We fought for them. There was passion. It was important to me that they trusted me, that they could trust me.

This was tempered by my understanding of my professional responsibilities as a licensed engineer. An engineer has specific responsibilities to society, the public, and the law that override those to our clients. In 30 years I never did anything for a client that I thought was illegal, unethical, or dishonorable.

I've never met a competent person - mechanic, doctor, engineer, cook, cashier, dentist... - who didn't care about providing good service to their client, customer, patient. This is from an Emerson essay I love - "Compensation."

Labor is watched over by the same pitiless laws. Cheapest, say the prudent, is the dearest labor. What we buy in a broom, a mat, a wagon, a knife, is some application of good sense to a common want. It is best to pay in your land a skillful gardener, or to buy good sense applied to gardening; in your sailor, good sense applied to navigation; in the house, good sense applied to cooking, sewing, serving; in your agent, good sense applied to accounts and affairs. So do you multiply your presence, or spread yourself throughout your estate. But because of the dual constitution of things, in labor as in life there can be no cheating. The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself.

For the real price of labor is knowledge and virtue, whereof wealth and credit are signs. These signs, like paper money, may be counterfeited or stolen, but that which they represent, namely, knowledge and virtue, cannot be counterfeited or stolen. These ends of labor cannot be answered but by real exertions of the mind, and in obedience to pure motives. The cheat, the defaulter, the gambler, cannot extort the knowledge of material and moral nature which his honest care and pains yield to the operative. The law of nature is, Do the thing, and you shall have the power: but they who do not the thing have not the power.

Why would it have been better had a pagan said it? — Bitter Crank

Love is the love of Jesus, God. Takes away blame, easy peasy. It would just be more interesting, psychologically, philosophically if the love of each other, the love of other people, the love of other people for you, could take away blame. That would take some thought.

‘Truth, Lord; but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.’
‘And know you not,’ says Love, ‘Who bore the blame?’
‘My dear, then I will serve.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
So I did sit and eat. — Bitter Crank

I assume this is an explicitly Christian sentiment, but it would be more interesting if it weren't.

Who can dislike an epic poem which is yet endearing? — Michael Zwingli

I'm glad you like it.

When I started this thread, I should have specified that posters should not include more than a limited number of personally written poems. Alas. Because I didn't, you have filled it with, by my count, 18 self-indulgent, poorly written poems.

I really like this thread. Lots of good interesting poetry and people with interesting ideas. What I've really liked is that it hangs around or a while, then goes away, then comes back again. Whenever it pops back up, it gives me pleasure. You have taken this nice, pleasing little thread and turned it into a dumping ground for your failed attempts at profundity to the extent that you've almost drowned out the good poetry out there. What I fear is that you have dozens more poems hidden away on your computer that you will continue to place here.

Please stop. There are plenty of poetry forums out there. Please stop damaging one of my favorite discussions.

I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:) — Lea

I'm an engineer. When we design a structure, we calculate all the loads on it - gravity, wind, seismic, snow. Then we estimate material properties - steel, soil, wood, bolts.... Then we increase the calculated and estimated values by what we call a factor of safety. Then we run calculations to see if the structure will stand up.

The factor of safety is the engineering way of dealing with doubt.

I tend towards sentimentality in poetry — Michael Zwingli

This made me want to ask - do you like "Song of Hiawatha?" Maybe more romantic than sentimental. I don't know if it's a good poem, but I love it.

Cue the doleful violas. — Bitter Crank

Or perhaps more like this:

don't know if you have ever read this one (I'd be surprised, since it is fairly well known), but it's long been a favorite of mine. It is a statement about human nature thought processes, and interactions. — Michael Zwingli

Realized I hadn't responded to this one. Yes, it seems familiar. It doesn't move me like some of his other poems. What is it you like about it? Is it the content or do you find the form pleasing?

How hopeless under ground
Falls the remorseful day. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes. The story of my life.

There are sensations unknowable to science. We only know the human ones because we have them. Otherwise, humans would be like bats, to an alien or AI science lacking those sensations. — Marchesk

I'm not sure what you mean by "unknowable to science." Unknown, sure. We know about some senses that other organisms have that we do not. As I noted, there are animals who can sense magnetic and electrical fields.

Isn't that a problem for physicalism? — Marchesk

How so?

But bats may experience sonar in a way that's entirely different from any of our sensations. It's just an example. — Marchesk

Some philosophers also believe that people may not experience common human sensory input the same way others humans do. In the case of bat vs. human perception, there certainly is a stronger argument to be made. I'll go back to what I wrote first - if I can observe and study how a bat uses sound waves to sense the world, it is possible that I can share some of its experience.

Surely there are sensations we have no idea about. — Marchesk

I'm sure there are. How could we have any idea about what an organism is experiencing if we don't even know the experience exists?

So you think learning bat language would give us sonar sensations? — Marchesk

No, but I think that learning bat language and being able to detect bat sonar signals might allow us to understand what bats are saying and how they think and see the world. As for "giving us sonar sensations," some thoughts. First, I don't know how different echolocation is from hearing, so I don't know how different the experience is. Also, humans use sound waves to understand the world in ways beyond hearing. We use sonar to detect underwater objects and seismic sensing to detect underground objects. Both these methods provide visual records of what the sound has detected. As for the experience of echolocation, as I wrote before, if we know how it works well enough, to some people, including me, that means we can know what the experience is like.

So you're saying if a bat could talk sonar, we would understand it? — Marchesk

I'm not sure what you mean by "talk sonar." If you mean without any device to allow us to detect and interpret the sounds, then no. If you mean can we understand bat language, I don't think there is one. If you mean if a bat could talk sonar that we could pick up on our equipment in an actual language expressing concepts, perceptions, and feelings, I don't see why not.

The controversy would be over color sensation, not the physics of EM radiation. Same problem we have when discussing bat sonar sensation, except bats have no language to name it for us.

Mary's species wouldn't know anything about color the same way we don't know anything about whatever sensation bats have when experiencing sonar. — Marchesk

Some philosophers would say that if she studied and observed enough to be able to use terms of color and seeing appropriately then she would know what it means to see and to see color. Is that pragmatism? It makes sense to me.