appears to be the aim. — Wayfarer

Seems so as the OP stipulates a pre-1905 purview.

No, it isn't. — Banno

Of course it is.

Ludicrous to say it's not.

Wish I had time to watch it. I'll catch the highlights and the blooper reel.

I agree with that one. It's just a long wait for the People (in no way excluding myself) to put away childish things. Another millennium or two should do.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

H.L. Mencken

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

mentally disordered — karl stone

So it's a mental disorder? Would you recommend conversion therapy?

Always telling when a request for a substantiating quote is met with silence.

Tristan Tzara — 180 Proof

Tzara wrote some brilliant poetry. Playful at times but not so playful in Approximate Man:



the bells ring for no reason and we too
we walk to escape the multiplying ways
with a flask of scenery one illness only one
one single illness that we nurture death
I know I carry the tune in me and am not afraid
I carry death and if I die it is death
who will carry me in its imperceptible arms
subtle and light as the smell of thin grass
subtle and light as the parting for no reason
without bitterness without commitments without regret without
the bells ring for no reason and we too

...

the bells ring for no reason and we too
we will rejoice in the clank of chains
that we will sound within us with the bells

Are Libertarian Republicans liberal or conservative? — Michael

The tend to be in cahoots with anti-regulation conservatives.

I'm a liberal with respect to the market economy if I oppose regulations. — Michael

In the US, this is a conservative position. Liberals are pro-regulation.

Gotcha. :cool:

Most of us simply aren’t familiar enough with philosophy, or good enough at making the translation from philosophical to scientific language, to recognize this parallel. — Joshs

I get that philosophers cleared away the clouds for the scientists. I'm on board.

I described my complaint above. Fetishistic partisanship and a detachment of philosophy from the pursuit of wisdom.

I know it will sound weird if I say that philosophy ‘sent folks to the moon’ two centuries before NASA. But what I mean is that most of the important conceptual elements required for this technological achievement were in place with the breakthrough work of certain key philosophers. — Joshs

Sure. This falls in with my "clearing away the clouds" metaphor. Scientists have specific and daunting clouds to clear away - whatever hinders progress or inhibits vision.

George Kelly — Joshs

This seems like a valuable insight into varying constructs of reality - for the practicing psychologist:

"Some constructions are better than others. Mine, I hope, is better than that of someone who is seriously mentally ill. My physician's construction of my ills is better, I trust, than the construction of the local faith healer." Ibid.

Re George Kelley, who apparently doesn't have a wiki page:

"It began to occur to him that what truly mattered to these people was that they had an explanation of their difficulties, that they had a way of understanding them. What mattered was that the "chaos" of their lives developed some order. And he discovered that, while just about any order and understanding that came from an authority was accepted gladly, order and understanding that came out of their own lives, their own culture, was even better.

Out of these insights, Kelly developed his theory and philosophy. The theory we'll get to in a while. The philosophy he called constructive alternativism. Constructive alternativism is the idea that, while there is only one true reality, reality is always experienced from one or another perspective, or alternative construction. I have a construction, you have one, a person on the other side of the planet has one, someone living long ago had one, a primitive person has one, a modern scientist has one, every child has one, even someone who is seriously mentally ill has one."


http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/kelly.html#:~:text=The%20philosophy%20he%20called%20constructive,another%20perspective%2C%20or%20alternative%20construction.

Is that an accurate account, to your knowledge? I like the sound of it well enough.


Thanks for the new name.

:cool:

We know that a construct is invalidated when... we find ourselves in a state of confusion. — Joshs

I agree with this.

I can't tell if that's a yes or a no.

I dig Carl Rogers, his approach to therapy is refreshing. I'll check out George Kelley.

But nobody should dump Maslow. :joke: He was a beautiful man and he changed my life.

One might want to argue through the method of empirical test , scientific theories are tighter, more rigorous, more precise in their predictions than any philosophical account, but I think the opposite is the case. A science is a conventionalized version of a philosophy. — Joshs

I don't really compare science and philosophy in this way. Science sends folks to the moon and gives me omeprazole for my reflux. So to my view, it's a tool, just like philosophy. No hierarchy here, to my view.

All philosophical accounts are testable — Joshs

All? Do you mean testability exists vis-a-vis the realist v. idealist showdown?

That means we should strive for a new perspective not just when a theory isnt working, but also when it is working, when it does t appear confused. — Joshs

This seems to be a healthy - non-fetishizing - approach to the philosophical adventure. My complaint is with, for example, folks on this forum who have, at times more or less brutally, defended a particular worldview for years on end with no further exploration apart from a continuous buttressing-up of a static view with novel-sounding morsels from their echo chamber of choice. I assume this sort of thing goes on in Academia as well.

I think philosophy should have some connection to wisdom.

That means we should strive for a new perspective not just when a theory isnt working, but also when it is working, when it does t appear confused. — Joshs

I agree we should constantly strive for a new perspective. But when a vital healthiness of mind is achieved, to my view it's time to put philosophy to bed and rest on our laurels.

My continuing to search for new vistas put philosophy on the back burner in favor of psychology, especially the positive psychology of flourishing and Maslow's research on peak experiences. Unfathomed heights there to discover and explore.

Clearing away clouds is only desirable to the extent that it opens up magnificent new vistas. — Joshs

Day or night, only clear away the clouds and you get a "magnificent vista." The word "new" here I can take or leave. The old Stoics have provided me with the cloudlessest of skies.

We only need the new if we're clearing ancient clouds and have never seen the sky. We need the new to eliminate inherited errors of thought - confusions, covert and overt.

To the extent that philosophy clears away clouds, eliminates confusion, it has value.

But philosophy also has its part in creating clouds and confusions. Think egocentric self-distortions. I see it on the forums every time I check in.

Everything we pride our sciences for , and more, we can expect from our philosophies. — Joshs

Philosophy in general deals in untestable theories so it's easy to get snared in one's personal fetishistic philosophical labyrinth and thereby to self-aggrandize boundlessly - there's no controlled experiment on the horizon to set one straight if one has committed an egregious error.

All we have here is peer review (Academia to Facebook) and echo chambers (Academia to Facebook) choosing camps and scoffing at the enemy. Fetishizing the untestable.

Again, just my view.

Is thar all that Newton, Einstein and Darwin did? — Joshs

No, they did science and research but needed philosophy to clear away whatever clouds created confusion or hindered progress. Philosophy should be a tool, not an obsession, not a fetish, not a fun house mirror to twist the ego or aggrandize the thinker.

Just my view.

Clearing away clouds is only desirable to the extent that it opens up magnificent new vistas. — Joshs

That's the idea. It's a malleable metaphor.

Far too seriously. Certainty can be a crippling psychological illness.


Uncertainty too. Philosophy has its place but should keep to it: clearing away the clouds.

:up:

Fair enough, for which the awareness of there being something to be transcended would be a pre-requisite. — Wayfarer

It's conceivable that some X becomes visible only when transcended.

I was extolling a transcendence of worldview X, Y or Z. Worldview XX, YY or ZZ provide the clearest vista on worldview X, Y or Z.

Hence the perpetual need for self-transcendence.

Not sure how to receive your response.

One can only recognize their position as just one more worldview once they have transcended it. — Joshs

At that point I think we start to take philosophy less seriously. It's still healthy brain food and good for clearing away the clouds. But has little effect on, for example, blood pressure.

mass formation — Tzeentch

"Mass formation psychosis" is not an appropriate psychiatric term or a clinical diagnosis to describe "groupthink."

Terms like "mass delusion" and "mass psychosis" are being used inappropriately as pejoratives to denigrate our ideological opponents.

Psychiatric terminology should not be used to advance political agendas.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202201/does-mass-formation-psychosis-really-exist

...but of course that's what they would say, isn't it? — Banno

Those damned leftist radicals over at Reuters.

Didn't know a tie could have that kind of power :joke:

Reminds me of the Mechanical Bride.

They're out there in masses looking for a megaphone.

I think liberals have a caricature of people one the right in their heads, like "fox watching, bible thumping, guns touting rednecks". :) Of course, we, in return, see libs as "prius driving, bed wetting" :) — M777

It sounds like you've never turned on Fox News. Alt-Right reality is now a caricature of itself. Turn on Fox and see - the simulacrum.


The most popular cable news channel on Earth. Millions and millions and millions of sympathetic viewers tuning out and tuning in.