True the idea in a particular form is in Plato, the noumenal world of the Ideas as opposed to the phenomenal shadows of the Cave. — Janus

Whitehead had a point, philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato. Got to go back and reread some of his works sometime...

"carved at the joints" more or less isomorphically with the ways we perceive it. — Janus

Yes, something like that appears to be the case. With hard work, we are able to discern the structure of things, but what gives the thing it's structure we just don't know.

It's hard to imagine how a rich world of diversity, invariance and change could manifest out of an amorphous mass of whatever. — Janus

And most of it isn't even concrete, as in that you can touch it with your hands.

Hell, if dark matter and dark energy actually exist, we aren't even made of the stuff most of the Universe is made of. It's wild.

what could it be in itself? — Janus

That's my metaphysical bane.

You could even argue that it's kind of in Plato with his ideas. There's something about objects as they appear to us that seem incomplete, in some important respects.

I know, it's kind of life trying to think about the largest possible number, or something. But it's fascinating.

So it wasn't called a tree until some human named it such, but neither was it called a thing until some human named it as such. — Janus

Which is why "things-in-themselves", or the "thing in itself", or whatever specific variety of this idea one ends up using, can be helpful in thinking about this.

Or at least I find it very useful.

Gotcha.

Good stuff. :up:

That's a very sensible way of thinking formulating the problem, actually. :up:

We can’t know the thing represented by its phenomenon directly, that’s true, but it is nonetheless directly presented to us. — Mww

What do you mean by directly presented?

I see a tree, it's a representation. It's grounds are unknown to me, I follow this far.

What's directly presented here?



This makes more sense.

We do not postulate anything. If you can see and touch a thing you have to be far off to even think about the possibility that it might not "exist". — Heiko

We postulates things all the time, not only in science but in day to day life too.

I agree that something exists. I can't prove it. Human knowledge doesn't work with "final proofs". It's that I think there are better reasons for believing that something exists independently of me than there good reasons for thinking that nothing does.

My contention is only that there is no need to develop a distinction between mind and matter, because the absence of that distinction, is impossible, with respect to our human system of rational agency. It follows that without the development of a distinction, any illusory predicates assignable to it, disappear, which is where this whole dialogue began. — Mww

Ah, I see. The terminology can get really tricky, but I'll be willing to grant that there is some kind of natural inclination to distinguish mind or soul from everything else. It's the way we naturally view the world, "folk" psychologically, as it were, not that I'm enamored with that term.

But no substantive problem here, on my part.

Russell’s neutral monism, which says mind and matter are indistinguishable, re: “Analysis of Mind”, 1921, is invalid, for it reduces ultimately to the paradoxical conclusion that whenever one is conscious he is aware of his own brain — Mww

Correct on the part of him saying that we aware of our brains, through experience. But, as I understand it, Neutral Monism is not so much that mind and matter are indistinguishable. Neutral Monism is the idea that world is neither mental nor physical as we understand these terms.

As far as I am aware, Russell didn’t take that bait. But he did wrap, or rather, smother, himself in language, which is just as bad. — Mww

Sure, his use of words can be problematic. But his point about neurologists examining brains is correct, in my view. There is no view from nowhere.

I agree with you that there needs to be something which grounds the phenomena we are interpreting. It's just that we can't go directly to these grounds.

It's the vocabulary he chose to use, as do many other philosophers, accompanied by the usual connotations people tend to have when they use them.

The important distinction, the one which I think is intelligible is to associate matter with "non-mental" and mind with "mental". It is claimed that matter is not mind, I don't agree but, that's the vocabulary we are stuck with.

The idea would be that the physiologist studies (non-mental) matter, as seen in brains. This is the famed "third person perspective." Then the physiologist presents us an objective report on the observed phenomena, in this case the (non-mental) brain.

What Russell is saying using this contentious vocabulary, is that the physiologist is actually not studying (non-mental) matter, he is studying how his mind reacts to a supposedly "objective" thing. So it's a mental construct on the occasion of a stimulus.

We don't get to study (non-mental) matter anywhere, unless we could literally get out of our bodies. We just have to postulate its existence.

I thought you wanted to articulate an opposing view. :worry:

Oh well, I suppose I'll have to mostly agree with you in some other thread.

I am quite pessimistic regarding the chances of success in controlling (let alone reducing) climate warming. The major CO2 / methane / other GH gas producers have too much investment sunk in automobiles, coal-generated electricity, petroleum, meat-production agriculture, plastics, and so forth to make either any changes or rapid changes. It's too late for slow changes. — Bitter Crank

Well that's your problem: you are being reasonable and looking at the evidence.

I think it's important to keep in mind that nothing's set in stone until it happens, and there is plenty of climate science activism. Quite a lot, actually. But it's not enough. This is so crazy that you have countries like Australia pledging neutrality by 2050 and Saudi Arabia by 2060. That's 20 and 30 years too late, respectively.

US, China and others too, everybody really, minus a few scattered countries. Nothing against Australians or Saudi's here, it's simply that governments and business as you point out, aren't taking this seriously enough. By the time they do, it's going to be too late to mitigate the worst of it.

It is the case that a world economy COULD BE ORGANIZED around renewable energy production, mass transit, sustainable food, fibre, housing production, and so forth, but anything resembling a fast transition (like, by 2035) would produce wrenching, social-shredding dislocations throughout the world. If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. — Bitter Crank

Those things you mention could happen in a quick transition, sure. But if we don't do it quickly, it's just going to be brutal beyond words.

Still, we keep the pressure up, however we can and hope something big happens that changes the situation accordingly. There's nothing else I can see that can be done.

Will it be enough? It's an open question, which is quickly coming to a close.

Philosophy replaces religion inasmuch as you decide it does. If there is a philosophy which has a spiritual or mystical aspect which is appealing, then you could use than instead of religion.

Which begs the question....why does the necessarily given need to be developed? — Mww

Because if one isn't careful, they will begin to think that they are looking directly at a brain and believe that non-mental activity (neuronal and electrochemical activity) is mental activity.

But the physiologist hasn't touched the mind.

He has interpreted the data and is giving reports based on his own experiential activity, not on some activity outside his experience, which presumably would be non-mental.

The general orientation.

That what the physiologist sees is not the brain of the subject "neutrally", but instead that what he's actually seeing are the effects of his own experience (the physiologist, that is) reacting when looking at the behavior of another persons brain. But even here the physiologist is not "seeing" the experience of the patient.

I think that using "physical" and "mental" so frequently can be a bit confusing. I prefer to use Strawson's terms "non-experiential" for matter and "experiential" for mental.

Awesome. What a fantastic quote.

Many thanks! :)

Yes. Your last sentence sums it up nicely. It tends to happen with first principles: we can only get so far before we have to say "this is the way it is".

This God talk of omnipotence and omniscience is familiar enough. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to apply certain limits to such a hypothetical being. The reasoning is that, for a being to be a being, including a supreme one, it has to have a nature of some kind.

If the nature of this being is infinite, then it has infinite scope. But such boundlessness would not allow for any mechanism to develop. It's only within limits that existence is possible, otherwise the term existence loses meaning.

Not that I believe any of this, but we can substitute "Nature" for "God", and see if something comes out of it.

That's well put. :up:

But sometimes I wonder if we can ever step outside consciousness so as to explain it. — frank

I mean if you as yourself can step outside of your own experience to look at yourself. No. Me neither for myself.

We can try to trick ourselves into thinking than when another person is analyzing our experience via fMRI or some personal behavioral reports (I see a brown dog, I see a blue fish, etc.) that these reports are outside experience, as in a "objective view", or a view from nowhere.

But we don't do that, what the neuroscientist or psychologist is doing is analyzing how certain aspects of the other persons experience affects there own experience.

Russell has a nice quote about this somewhere.

EDIT:

Here, it's worth a look:

https://books.google.com.do/books?id=VEB9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=bertrand+russell+what+the+physiologist+sees+is+by+no+means+identical&source=bl&ots=ce7mXSFUS4&sig=ACfU3U3dvNp32LYUjSsMtsR_Jp3DVNvjfA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5udGGlunzAhXxTDABHTKSC5wQ6AF6BAgfEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Last paragraph of pp.152 to halfway through pp.153, quite brief, but to the point.

I can't copy it and typing it would be too long.

So after a bit more reflection on questions like why does consciousness, this universe, or even existence "exists", I began to think that maybe it's our understanding of consciousness that makes the problem seem "hard". — Flaw

It's a kind of distortion or forgetting of history that this is called the "hard problem". During the enlightenment when Descartes, Hume, Kant and the like were producing masterpieces, the hard problem was "motion", that is the movement of objects. Newton was astonished that he could not give a physicalistic account of gravity.

For whatever reason, the "hard problem" of motion has been forgotten in terms of people even knowing it used to be a problem at all. Gravity's inconceivability has just been accepted. Now we have this specific articulation of the hard problem, which at the time of the 18th century had to be admitted, by some anyway: that matter thinks.

Yes Chalmers pointed to a hard problem, but we should not forget that gravity, electromagnetism, free will, causality and indeed a great portion of philosophy are hard problems too. Perhaps by contextualizing this issue, it will seem less specifically puzzling.

After all, we are acquainted with experience much better than the world out there.

Grand priest.

They'll hang on to the bitter end. Look at where we are in the US congress. — Xtrix

Yes. Agreed. Maybe it is using a term too broadly, but I think this is tightly connected to the neoliberal agenda, which, during this Pandemic at least, has shown some signs of weakening a little. Not nearly enough, but it's something. As long as people keep getting diverted by cultural issues of little survival significance, then money will do as it pleases.

I mean people are screaming about AOC, about as milk toast "left" as you could be in a European country, at least until not so long ago. If that's how they behave with like 5 or 6 members of congress, what on Earth would they do if the left of the Dems actually had, say, 30 representatives or more? I shudder to think.

but the fact that the Republican party, still a party of climate denial, has even the possibility of being elected anywhere in the US is probably the death knell. Who knows. — Xtrix

Herein lies the key. These people are just the embodiment of ruthless "bottom line-ism", all cleverly cloaked under nice sounding, meaningless names. The only way I can think of moving Republicans a little to the center, is to make Democrats actually come to the center-left.

With so much propaganda and misinformation and everything else, the task looks galactic in scale. I know that it can't be that hard in real life, but, these mega-corporations have to lose some power or it's over. It won't be gifted, that's clear, but how to take it away, when leftists fight each other is... perplexing.

Apparently, now nothing. I don't expect insight from such a person in the form of propositions or articulable knowledge. Kind of trying to imagine what that would be like, but it's not really possible.

Simply curious to see how people inside these traditions thinkin about these things.

An outsider definitely cannot recognize an enlightened person. — baker

Can an outsider spot a fraud, or do they camouflage themselves well?

That's generally true.

That's fine if you want to use that way, which is its normal use I think.

I think it could be used more fruitfully when applied to people who usually don't fit the common term. But that would be moving away from his thread.

But, you have a good case.

When I called myself an intellectual, I gave a specific definition of what I meant by that to avoid any confusion. As I noted, calling myself an intellectual "doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at." — T Clark

I agree. It's a fine use of the word.

I wouldn't be too serious about the label, not that you are. It's a legitimate use of the word.

I think that's true in many cases, not here.

Why is the car mechanic who can fix a car engine that no Nobel Prize winning Physicist could not considered an intellectual?

Or a nurse that can help treat a patient who would die in the hands of much respected Journalist? That's not intellectual, being to able to know how to treat wounds and save lives?

On the other hand, many so called "intellectuals", specifically certain journalists, are the biggest frauds and liars of all. Aren't these the very same people who every time there's just even half of a chance to bomb a country in the Middle East, salivate and give all sorts of reasons as to why killing people is good for democracy?

So the word can be quite misleading...

In some religions/spiritualities, the standard answer to the above is "It takes one to know one". — baker

So then it is evident to someone who's on the outside when a "fake" is speaking to someone who is enlightened?

Or do you need to be around such people to tell?

"Intellectual", that's quite a funny word. Can be used as praise, as an insult or even neutral sounding.

As far as I can see everybody is an intellectual, literally. Unless they're in a coma.

Well, a bit of good news at least:

Dutch pension giant spurns fossil fuels as funds shift before COP26

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/dutch-pension-fund-abp-sell-175-bln-fossil-fuel-assets-2021-10-26/

Much more of this, would be of some importance.

Sure. A good portion of it depends on the teacher being able to make this stuff stand out, which for philosophy can be especially difficult, given many topics can be quite abstract. Ethics, perhaps less so and is more pertinent for the everyday.

It makes sense that older students would be more interested in these things.

Each person is unique and I surely was not ready for philosophy in my first year in college. Had I the mentality that I have now, I would've taken a lot out of my classes which I missed out on. I ended up teaching myself, which worked for me, but could have perhaps been made easier with a different mindset.

Absolutely.

The idea is to try to keep level headed about this stuff, otherwise anyone starts believing they have something that makes them really special over anyone else, and it goes both ways meaning mystical vs. scientist.

We do the best we can trying to be clear in our intentions, when possible.

It's an interesting proposition and sounds different from what is usually associated with the term today but looks quite sensible.

I think self-learning can be excellent for some people, given the state of Academia in neoliberal terms, what with extreme competition, aiming for test scores, wanting flashy essays in journals only 2 people read, etc.



Na, just came to mind as something roughly reasonable.



There's a lot to be said about that. I mean, everybody's different, but learning that comes naturally, that is, reading and engaging in stuff you find intrinsically attractive and challenging and thought provoking, much more often than not stays with you in a way learning in a classroom rarely does. And it's also a lifelong thing.

Within the context of those figures quoted, it indeed was an act of rebellion and must have been liberating too.

Cornel West is fantastic.

Sure, but Socrates was Socrates by doing the exact oppose the OP suggests - he most decidedly did not stay in his room and have the world 'writhe at his feet'. He literally wondered the agora looking for trouble. — StreetlightX

Didn't the Buddha sit and meditate for a long time under a tree? Parts of that tradition can be called philosophical. I do agree that sitting in a room doing nothing forever won't get you anywhere. So there is room for nuance here.

I agree. That's the cool thing about a forum like this, is that you can have philosophical discussions without being a philosopher. Most, if not everyone here, is not a philosopher. And that's OK. I also agree that philosophy should include lots of non Western-canon things - but I have never insisted that it should. — StreetlightX

Then what we have here is a matter of difference of how we are interpreting the OP. I think Cornel West makes a good distinction between "philosophy as a profession" and "philosophy as a way of life". We can add to that philosophy as a hobby or amateur philosophy, which needn't mean bad.

By now, if you aren't teaching in academia, it's hard for people to call anyone a philosopher. There are very, very few exception. Raymond Tallis is the only one that comes to mind and perhaps Bernardo Kastrup too.

But Socrates would not be called a philosopher today if he was not already in the tradition and it's clear that he was one. So that's problematic for the term.

I guess I'll I can call someone as a philosopher honorifically, while still accepting most of your concerns.

And everyone knows it. I don't have it, I've never pretended to have it, I absolutely would not want it, and I've only seen it twice. But I knew when I saw it, and so did everyone else. Nobody fucks with those men; at least not with any quarter. — James Riley

Yes. Can confirm from my experience too.

When seen in this light, there is really no need for anyone to feel insecure or jealous or to mount their steed and coming charging at me with demands for logical proof of something I never teased them with in the first place. I don't pretend to the Dali Llama or some sage or zen master. Those boys are a different animal. — James Riley

I don't want to convey the impression that I'm asking for something I am missing. And I totally accept your feelings of insight, I've had them too, in very different circumstances from Eastern traditions. I mean, lots of people swear by these experiences, to the point of death.

I call these types of things "mystical", others can use "gnostic", or "spiritual", it matters little what terminology is used.

I do however also understand others who have not had this experience, ask for some articulation, and when it is not given, I understand the skepticism that comes with that. But, it is what it is. Not much too do about that.

Thanks for sharing that.

I think there's very much something to that "authenticity" feeling. It's a bit hard to pin down in words, but one can certainly feel it when around such people. It's a bit of a shame lots of these things can't be expressed well with words.

Then again, I suppose that's what makes it a challenge and interesting too.

I agree. But I also think philosophy is different. It has branches in all fields of knowledge, which branched out of it. So fundamental issues in all domains, are often philosophical.

What was Socrates doing? He was asking questions to ordinary citizens. He's called a philosopher. Why wasn't he called a lawyer? Or a historian?

The problem with the feel-good 'we're all philosophers in our own way happy happy joy joy' bullshit is that it is safe, sanitized. Is it any wonder that the OP can be read simply as a post-hoc justification of simply being lazy? I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'. — StreetlightX

I don't know where you're reading into my reply any "feel-goodness". I'm saying that if you look at many of the threads here, they are often made by people with little by way of knowledge of traditional figues, yet many times the question are perfectly legitimate and difficult.

I think T. Clark in general has interesting things to say. Perhaps he should've re-phrased his OP. That's fine, no additional argument from me on that end.

Things eventually sort out. "Woo"-people tend to leave or are ignored. So I don't see the problem. But feel-good is far from my intent in believing philosophy should include many traditions and perspectives not limited to the classical Western figures.

No, it's fine. These are fair questions to ask. I should be able to reply or attempt to.

I don't think a bureaucrat or marketing manager would generally be puzzled enough about why there is something rather than anything at all or be bothered that things go down instead of going up. These things may, once in a blue moon, come to the fore, but these things aren't irritating to them a lot of the time.

That's my problem with all this feel-good inclusivity of "staring at walls is philosophy". What, exactly is philosophical about it? Where's the specificity? What makes this anything more than an attempt to turn a personal failing into a dignified quote-unqoute principled "philosophical" stance? — StreetlightX

Well, that's the thing: what is philosophy?

Can you specify what it is? Is philosophy what Descartes had in mind when he was writing? I'd say there's good historical evidence to suggest that his main concerns were what we now call "scientific". What we haven't surpassed or improved on his science is what we call "philosophy".

You can stare at walls for many different reasons. If you're staring at a wall because you don't like the colours, then you might either be an interior decorator or wanting to call one to change it.

If you look at wall and think, if this wall is a product of my mind why can't I step through it, then I think you are approximating philosophy.

I think the opposite "gate keeping" stance is more dangerous: it narrows the field to academia only, into debates about the ontological status of irrational numbers or what possible world isn't Nixon Nixon and so on.

Some of these are of some interest. But soon it loses the immediacy connected with the human condition and will keep people who might otherwise be interested very far away from topics most people should find interesting, because they are intrinsically interesting.

I think you apply James. It's hard to set forth strict criteria, but something like:

1) Willingness to be puzzled at "obvious things"
2) Often being unsatisfied with answers given
3) Being able to articulate what you're thinking in a relatively clear manner
4) Have some interest in "philosophical issues" which can be highlighted in the arts broadly conceived and in everyday living
5) Being able to consider perspectives which are at odds with each other and consider the merits and problems of both views
6) Admitting mistakes in your reasoning
7) Engage in dialogue with others who share similar concerns often coming from completely different backgrounds into the same problems.

It may look like a lot, but I think this is sensible. Perhaps points 1-4 suffice.

Virtually nothing would've been my response.

We'll get some nice slogans, some nice pseudo-commitments, which always get pushed back anyway. Almost certainly nothing legally enforceable, which is what should matter in these things.

We're running out of time. It would be nice if the 2030 date got pushed back, but nature is speaking. It will be interesting/horrifying to see (if one is alive) what these countries and companies will be spewing out circa 2025 or so.

Thanks!

I haven't.

Which book?