~ To be a Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World ~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





...................................





At first blush with the ability to scrutinize important subjects through the many forms of mass media available within the Ethernet we would be able to discern clear truths, clear directions...not so.

Actually the opposite is almost more true. We are filled with more confusion, paranoia, and general isolation.

I think it has something to do with our actual intellectual function as human beings.


With the help of literal communications more of humanity is able to develop our intellects and yet when we do, we find we are no closer to observing truths nor are we able to better understand each other.




We need to go beyond our intellect.


As a legitimate philosopher, with a worthwhile perspective, we need to be able to distance ourselves from our intellect; ourselves - if that is even possible...



That is how, this moment, in our humanity we are different than past philosophers.

If you are going to be a legitimate philosopher, in today's world, that is the crossroads that I will meet you at.





.......................................................







.

[mattsidedish]

"Going beyond our intellect"

This is certainly a difficult aspect to grasp. If what you are trying to decribe is how we explain and discuss aspects of life and its influence on us without the use of our personal bias and subjective causes then you are correct. We should always seek better explanations than just what we see and feel. Being able to understand and explain these things, however requires that we must feel or see them, no?

Without intellect, aren't we just a bunch of creatures with feelings and thoughts, but with no way to interpret or apply them? Wouldn't we NOT be even able to relate our experience and understanding? Would we even be able to understand what a "legitimate philosopher" or a "worthwhile perspective" is?

I'm afraid that in the absence of intellect and cognitive resources, we as philosophers are nothing. But with it, we struggle to avoid the bias and other struggles that it comes with. We have to learn to use MORE than just our intellect, not to eliminate it completely, I must assert.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




.....................................................





I really appreciate your post.


There is a huge difference between consciousness and intellect.



Human intellect is a function. Our consciousness is a state of being.


We are so attached to what we think that we are deceived into believing that we are our intellect.


We are not limited to that exclusive function. That function is just a part of us.

At first blush it appears that we are the continuing narration that we experience throughout our lives.



We sit in a seat of continually changing states of consciousness.




We don't destroy the function of intellect we attempt to become detached or estranged from the continuing narration; the idle voice.


To become a Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World we need to be more self-conscious.



.

[mattsidedish]

And you are implying that using our intellect would not be a factor in being more self conscious?

You are putting human intellect into such a small category of use that it makes it seem to be a bad thing.

Intellect is a term used in studies of the human mind, and refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems.

Would you not agree that establishing a more self conscious state of mind and understanding would require us to problem solve? To come to a correct conclusion based on what is true or real? I would say yes.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



- Would you not agree that establishing a more self conscious state of mind and understanding would require us to problem solve? To come to a correct conclusion based on what is true or real? I would say yes. -


I would say no.

Life is too short.

To become more self-conscious we need to obtain the simple feeling of just being here; Just being self-conscious.


There are many members here who want to continue reading authors...philosophers.


IN GENERAL - That is just a waste of time.


It is soooo difficult to become self-conscious then realize we are self-conscious, and then hold & develop self-consciousness that we need EVERY available moment of our entire adult life...then some.




...................................................





If by problem solving you mean finding new ways to become self-conscious then - I agree with you - Yes.






.

[mattsidedish]

Then your description as to what intellect is, as well as its involvement in becoming more self conscious is a subjective state, and is not necessarily applicable to else's responsibilities for becoming more self conscious.

Not sure about your "There are many members here who want to continue reading authors...philosophers." Are you implying that only well established and revered philosophers such as yourself have the place to discuss issues here? Are you not open to constructive criticism? Do you not appreciate peer review?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






...............................................




- Then your description as to what intellect is, as well as its involvement in becoming more self conscious is a subjective state, and is not necessarily applicable to else's responsibilities for becoming more self conscious.

Not sure about your "There are many members here who want to continue reading authors...philosophers." Are you implying that only well established and revered philosophers such as yourself have the place to discuss issues here? Are you not open to constructive criticism? Do you not appreciate peer review? -






If you want to use the term, subjective state, that's fine.


If that helps you understand, that's great.


I think I agree with this part of the remainder of your sentence - not necessarily applicable to else's responsibilities for becoming more self conscious. - and I agree...I think.



- "There are many members here who want to continue reading authors...philosophers." -
I didn't write that sentence correctly initially and I am CERTAINLY NOT a well established and revered philosopher, here or anywhere else.


Everyone – EVERY member here at the PhilosophyNow Forums should feel that they have found not only the right place but THE BEST PLACE to discuss issues here. Period.



- Are you not open to constructive criticism? -
...I didn't feel like you have presented me any constructive criticism. I feel like we have just been having a conversation. I have really enjoyed this discussion thus far and I appreciate you taking an interest in the topic of this thread.


I hope you have been able to take away something that will help you in whatever path you are on.





.

[mattsidedish]

I didn't feel like you have presented me any constructive criticism. I feel like we have just been having a conversation.

That's fine. Perhaps I didn't relate my point clearly, or perhaps you simply don't view it as criticism. Either way, I'll very briefly go over my criticisms of your synopsis here.

1.
"we would be able to discern clear truths, clear directions...not so."

I would agree with this, generally, but I feel that you explanation as of why is incorrect. Right answer, wrong math, I think.

You "think it has something to do with our actual intellectual function as human beings." I don't. I believe our issue with being able to "discern clear truths, clear directions" is within our definition of "clear truths, clear directions." These are very, VERY generic terms. Even though they may be defined by one definition for any case, they apply to far too many cases to be considered specific.

Furthermore, your definition of a "clear truth or clear direction" may be (and I'm sure it is) completely different with many peoples'. This isn't bad; in fact it's a good thing for every individual to find their own truths and paths. while truth is truth, different truths may be applicable to your life as opposed to mine.

2.
"As a legitimate philosopher, with a worthwhile perspective, we need to be able to distance ourselves from our intellect;"

Firstly, I must eschew the term "legitimate philosopher." Unless you can accurately and specifically explain this term (what differentiates a legitimate philosopher from an illegitimate one), there's no reason for you to bring it up. Moreover, I would find it specifically precarious to judge one person legitimate and another illegitimate based on your subjective explanation of the term.

Next, a "worthwhile perspective." Again, this is a very shaky term. In order to establish a generically understood "worthwhile perspective," you absolutely must use your own definition. I would also request a specific definition for this term. Even so, I feel like the explanation of the term (as with the legitimate philosopher term) would be a subjective opinion that isn't necessarily applicable to anyone but yourself, except within yourself.

3.
"We need to go beyond our intellect."
In order to become more objective (how I would interpret "going outside ourselves), you must use your intellect. No matter your interpretation here, intellect is essential in problem solving and understanding ourselves and the world around us. Without intellect, we would be without a language, without the ability to understand emotion or stimuli, etc.

Because of this, I would also question the aspect of "going beyond intellect." As I stated before, as better way for you to phrase this would be: "We need to use more than just our intellect. Assuming that this is what you meant, I'll leave this point at this. If you literally meant that we shouldn't use our intellect, that's a new ballgame and will also need some logic and reasoning to go along with it.


I thank you also for the discussion. I feel now that my ideas are all on the table, and look forward to a better understanding between both of us in the near future on these issues. I always consider my criticisms constructive and hope you recieved them as such.

Matt.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




................................





I don't want to sound like a dick and I know it sounds like a small point but, I really don't see your responses as criticism of my post. You seem like you are asking more for clarifications. Which is all well & good.



You have a gentle approach.

At least on my part, that is appreciated here upon the forum.




At the risk of sounding like a fuckin asshole I honestly feel that if you would re-read my original post upon this thread a lot of what I stated may sound clearer.



As far as the term legitimate philosopher the crossroads that I mentioned is where we are as a progressive humanity.

There is a HUGE difference between you and I right now and ALL other philosophers of the past that have EVER existed...You and I posses the sum of humanity's knowledge at the end of our fingertips.

That has never happened before. The sum of humanity's knowledge. Let that sink-in.



Now, if we are to be considered legitimate; legitimate philosophers, we must look to our being; our consciousness as the exclusive plumb-line of our worth as modern philosophers.



I feel legitimate philosophers in today's world are the ones who are concerned about the development of consciousness; of self-consciousness.





...............................................................





.

[mattsidedish]

I read the OP about 10 times while writing my last post. A fresh look at the original information always helps.

My criticism is in the way you originally approached your explanations, or lack thereof.

My approach is always a respectful, tactful, and to-the-point, or at least I try my best to make it that way.

My problem now is that I wouldn't agree with your assertion that, "I feel legitimate philosophers are the ones who are concerned about the development of consciousness; of self-consciousness." Though my points here are also small in the big picture of what you're getting at, I still feel a certain level of importance in them.

This is your opinion. Of course you are entitled to it, but it remains still. Stigmatizing certain, "more legitimate philosophers" and requiring that anyone who uses philosophy to abide by your rules in order for them to be "legitimate" and have "worthwhile perspectives" isn't quite fair.

I see your point about us having the internet as a tool and how past philosophers (or anyone else for that matter) did not. This isn't a pertinent aspect of discussion here for me. My biggest issue is that you make the assertion that "we need to go beyond our intellect." I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of that term. Furthermore, I would request that when you define it, that you explain why we should "look beyond out intellect." As I stated before, if you are claiming that we should use more than just our intellect then I would agree with you. Our intelligence is only a small part of philosophy. However, if you are advising that "legitimate philosophers" must never actually use their intellect at all (in an effort to interpret your phrase, "look beyond intellect), I would have a problem with that.

I look forward to you explaining your terms and why they are better than denotative ones.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Wait a minute...of course, "I feel legitimate philosophers are the ones who are concerned about the development of consciousness; of self-consciousness." - is my opinion. That's why this is my thread.


I created the thread, wrote the thesis and then supported it...That's called philosophy.

That's why I asked you to re-read the original post.



If you look forward to me explaining my terms, my terms denote my terms.

Once more, the intellect is a function of being human our consciousness is a state of being. A continually changing state of being.



To be a Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World, an individual would need to be able to conceive that.


Give it time, perhaps today is not the day.





Thank you for participating in this thread and thank you for attempting to understand what can, for some, be a difficult philosophical concept.





.

[Ginkgo]

"Going beyond our intellect"

This is certainly a difficult aspect to grasp. If what you are trying to decribe is how we explain and discuss aspects of life and its influence on us without the use of our personal bias and subjective causes then you are correct. We should always seek better explanations than just what we see and feel. Being able to understand and explain these things, however requires that we must feel or see them, no?

Without intellect, aren't we just a bunch of creatures with feelings and thoughts, but with no way to interpret or apply them? Wouldn't we NOT be even able to relate our experience and understanding? Would we even be able to understand what a "legitimate philosopher" or a "worthwhile perspective" is?

I'm afraid that in the absence of intellect and cognitive resources, we as philosophers are nothing. But with it, we struggle to avoid the bias and other struggles that it comes with. We have to learn to use MORE than just our intellect, not to eliminate it completely, I must assert.

Hi Matt,

Upon reading through this thread what Bill seems to be proposing is known as existential phenomenology,largely associated with Martin Heidegger. If you google phenomenology, existential phenomenology or even Heidegger you will probably note a distinct parallel with what Bill calls, "legitimate philosophy"

I guess the question then becomes, "What forms of phenomenology are legitimate?" If any.

[Arising_uk]

I disagree that this is what Bill does, Phenomenology is the search for a description of the state of subjectivity that subjects can find agreement with, I think its also the provision of techniques to achieve the states that allow the subjects to confirm the description for themselves. So Buddhism is a kind of phenomenological philosophy, Husserls "Ideas" was also an attempt, as were Gurdjieff's and Ouspensky's(G&O) attempts. Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty also try but they do not provide techniques. In latter times one can view Bandler and Grinder and even L. Ron as doing a fair job with this approach, although Ron's aim was a new religion.

Bill on the other hand is a gnu, i.e. he wants to sounds profound but its in the aim of self-gratification for his own needs and issues and based upon a mish-mash of hippy 'eastern' mysticism and G&O's ideas, he actually just wants acolytes, hence he provides no clear description of what he claims, refuses to engage in any philosophical discussion of what he claims due to him having no actual idea of what he talks about and has no techniques to achieve what he vaguely asserts. In other words he cannot walk the talk. Its why he wishes to stifle the intellect and philosophy as it's antithetical to his actual aims.

If you truly wish to find 'enlightenment' then there is a clear path and it's the Buddha's but it consists of hard physical work, as to truly make meditation work you first need to get your body under control and that involves doing Yoga until you can full-lotus and sit in perfect repose, something budding western gnus just find to much effort.
Barring this then Bandler and Grinder's NLP offer some cheap and interesting alternatives and there are a host of new popular psychology books out there with very interesting mental techniques to improve ones thought processing with respect to what, in Psychology, has been variously called the tension between System 1 and System 2 thinking or thinking fast and thinking slow, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence, chimp and human thinking, et al. Others worth reading are Edward De Bono for creative thinking and efficient thinking and Tony Buzan for memory and notation in the process of thinking.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I feel like all of you have done a good job in attempting to understand what I have put forward.



I'm a little bit different from what you perceive bit on the other hand you relate to what I am doing here.



Good job. I mean it.


And I appreciate it.



Thank you for being a part of this general experience and this specific thread.






............................................






.

[Ginkgo]

I disagree that this is what Bill does, Phenomenology is the search for a description of the state of subjectivity that subjects can find agreement with, I think its also the provision of techniques to achieve the states that allow the subjects to confirm the description for themselves. So Buddhism is a kind of phenomenological philosophy, Husserls "Ideas" was also an attempt, as were Gurdjieff's and Ouspensky's(G&O) attempts. Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty also try but they do not provide techniques. In latter times one can view Bandler and Grinder and even L. Ron as doing a fair job with this approach, although Ron's aim was a new religion.

Bill on the other hand is a gnu, i.e. he wants to sounds profound but its in the aim of self-gratification for his own needs and issues and based upon a mish-mash of hippy 'eastern' mysticism and G&O's ideas, he actually just wants acolytes, hence he provides no clear description of what he claims, refuses to engage in any philosophical discussion of what he claims due to him having no actual idea of what he talks about and has no techniques to achieve what he vaguely asserts. In other words he cannot walk the talk. Its why he wishes to stifle the intellect and philosophy as it's antithetical to his actual aims.

If you truly wish to find 'enlightenment' then there is a clear path and it's the Buddha's but it consists of hard physical work, as to truly make meditation work you first need to get your body under control and that involves doing Yoga until you can full-lotus and sit in perfect repose, something budding western gnus just find to much effort.
Barring this then Bandler and Grinder's NLP offer some cheap and interesting alternatives and there are a host of new popular psychology books out there with very interesting mental techniques to improve ones thought processing with respect to what, in Psychology, has been variously called the tension between System 1 and System 2 thinking or thinking fast and thinking slow, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence, chimp and human thinking, et al. Others worth reading are Edward De Bono for creative thinking and efficient thinking and Tony Buzan for memory and notation in the process of thinking.

Fair enough. However, I am still wondering what constitutes a legitimate philosophy as opposed to most other types of philosophy. Perhaps Bill can tell us.