On Philosophy

[mtmynd1]

On Philosophy -

(n) - love and pursuit of wisdom thru intellectual means and moral discipline.

... and so it is. Philosophy ultimately leads to no answers but many unspoken questions. Why? Because we take the intellectual approach to realization, when those paths are but diversions from the ultimate causation of being. Philosophy has the intellectual possibilities of mental exercise, but the essence of our true being must transcend the intellect and into the realm of mystery, the profound mystery of existence, the metaphysical realms and beyond...beyond the perpetual asking of the mind.

But..! And I should capitalize that word, 'BUT!" talking is what we do just as flying is what birds do and swimming is what fish do... we hu'man's talk and love to do so. If it wasn't for the love of talking arguably there would be no philosophy... or religion, not science or literature and even no singing. If you belief this to be bullshit, what else do people do on this site or any site on the internet..?? Talk is the reason of being. We would rather talk than work. Hell, we'd give up sleep is we had someone to talk to.

And if we don't have anyone to talk to what do we do..? We talk to ourselves. Not out loud necessarily but those silent talks we have when silence becomes unbearable. There really is no secret reason behind our love of talking but simply accepting the fact that is what we do best... talk. It doesn't have to be intellectual... not humorous... it can even be nonsensical as long as talking is possible.

[David Handeye]

I'd say not talking, rather communicating. I think, as Aristotele said, we humans are social beings, so our nature is to interact with our similars, communicating. We need to communicate our insights, our feelings, our impressions, and our thoughts. Before talking, which is just a means, if there isn't our need to communicate something to someone else, there wouldn't be interaction, and consequently even philosophycal approaches. Metaphysics has rather to do with mind, deafs and mutes and blinds feel the same need to communicate to someone else, they can sing, or paint, or compose, or write. They have human need to communicate something, in spite of their possibility of talking; then, if their communications have a philosophycal message, is secondary. Talking is just a means, the message is on philosophy. I think.

[mtmynd1]

I'd say not talking, rather communicating.

Talking precedes communicating which would be meaningless without the ability to talk. Only when we find mutual interests, ("similars") from talking then a communications becomes the next step.

Metaphysics has rather to do with mind, deafs and mutes and blinds feel the same need to communicate to someone else, they can sing, or paint, or compose, or write. They have human need to communicate something, in spite of their possibility of talking...

Not disagreeing with you on the deaf and mutes nor the blind for their basic needs also require 'talking', the deaf and mute using sign language in order to talk (altho silently). True those same folks can paint, compose (alto the deaf being able to compose musically is arguable), but certainly the ability to write should be no problem if they are taught how to do so.

Talking is just a means, the message is on philosophy. I think.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "the message is on philosophy"..? What message are you referring to?

[David Handeye]

Talking precedes communicating which would be meaningless without the ability to talk. Only when we find mutual interests, ("similars") from talking then a communications becomes the next step.

I don't agree, if you have nothing to say, what should you talk about? Communication precedes talking. In fact you can communicate a message not necessarily talking, you can communicate by writings, music, paintings, etc.

Not disagreeing with you on the deaf and mutes nor the blind for their basic needs also require 'talking', the deaf and mute using sign language in order to talk (altho silently). True those same folks can paint, compose (alto the deaf being able to compose musically is arguable), but certainly the ability to write should be no problem if they are taught how to do so.

Beethoven composed the Ninth being completely deaf.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "the message is on philosophy"..? What message are you referring to?

I think the message is on philosophy, what you have to communicate. Talking is just a means, a way to communicate your message, and only this one may have something of philosophycal, not properly the way you do that, the means you use for.

[mtmynd1]

I don't agree, if you have nothing to say, what should you talk about? Communication precedes talking. In fact you can communicate a message not necessarily talking, you can communicate by writings, music, paintings, etc.

Not sure how aware you are to the world around us, David. We hu'mans cannot shut up. We even pay hard-earned money to hear others talk. Radio/television is nothing but talk, talk, talk. We people do more talking than we do thinking! We talk before we think about what we are talking about. Music reeks of talking/singing... magazines, books, the internet, the bars one may frequent, the restaurants are a source of constant chatter. We go to the cinema for what..? Listen to actors play their parts. How do they do that? Talking. Look at this very thread we both are involved in - without our talking there would be silence. As a species on this planet, we talk more than we do anything else.

Beethoven composed the Ninth being completely deaf.

I sure you agree that your example is a rarity amongst the deaf..?

Talking is just a means, a way to communicate your message...

I don't disagree. I completely agree that talking is a means of communicating what *we* have to say to another. A small percentage of the time we spend listening to another's talking is comparably small to the amount of talk we generate with others. I seen time and time again people (including myself at times) talk while another is talking at the same time... even groups of people so eager to talk, they talk over others as a means to be heard. Hu'mans cannot keep their mouths shut unless they are in a deep sleep. And I am one of billions of those hu'mans as are you, David.

The whole premise of my essay was "Hu'mans talk" and I believe I made that perfectly clear. Talking is our main preoccupation. PN Discussion boards are but an infinitesimally small example of that truth.

[Impenitent]

you have two ears
you have one mouth

there is a reason for that

-Imp

[Pluto]

Yes, who was it said that again? The more of what you have, should you then use it more, as this is written into the blueprint.

[David Handeye]

Not sure how aware you are to the world around us, David. We hu'mans cannot shut up. We even pay hard-earned money to hear others talk. Radio/television is nothing but talk, talk, talk. We people do more talking than we do thinking! We talk before we think about what we are talking about. Music reeks of talking/singing... magazines, books, the internet, the bars one may frequent, the restaurants are a source of constant chatter. We go to the cinema for what..? Listen to actors play their parts. How do they do that? Talking. Look at this very thread we both are involved in - without our talking there would be silence. As a species on this planet, we talk more than we do anything else.

Yes, of course most people do more talking than thinking, but is that philosophy? I think not.

Beethoven composed the Ninth being completely deaf.

I sure you agree that your example is a rarity amongst the deaf..?

Yes, but this means even deaf can compose music.

I don't disagree. I completely agree that talking is a means of communicating what *we* have to say to another. A small percentage of the time we spend listening to another's talking is comparably small to the amount of talk we generate with others. I seen time and time again people (including myself at times) talk while another is talking at the same time... even groups of people so eager to talk, they talk over others as a means to be heard. Hu'mans cannot keep their mouths shut unless they are in a deep sleep. And I am one of billions of those hu'mans as are you, David.

The whole premise of my essay was "Hu'mans talk" and I believe I made that perfectly clear. Talking is our main preoccupation. PN Discussion boards are but an infinitesimally small example of that truth.

Talking is just a way to communicate something, also birds tweet, tweeting is in their nature, is tweeting making philosophy? I don't think so.
I don't think, as you wrote in the original post, that talk is the reason of being; being has many more reasons deeper than talking, i.e. loving, learning, working, playing, all things you can do in silence.

[mtmynd1]

Talking is just a way to communicate something, also birds tweet, tweeting is in their nature, is tweeting making philosophy? I don't think so.

I wrote: "Philosophy ultimately leads to no answers but many unspoken questions."

You wrote asked in this quote: "... is tweeting making philosophy?" and then wrote: "I don't think so."

I brought this up as an adjunct to what I primarily had written that Philosophy leads to no answers but many unspoken questions, which is exemplified by the (2) quotes from you. The tweeting of a bird is two-fold : a male sings to attract a mate and the pair tweet to raise their young in a manner which is best for the particular bird species learned over many years of trial and error. Is that "philosophical"? What 'makes' any study philosophical is how interested one is in finding answers to their questions. If the questioner delves into the subject, i.e. birds long enough, the questions become more numerous. The more questions created more answers and more opinions... vastly more opinions over factually correct answers, btw. I reckon you can say that is "making philosophy" as it began as one's curiosity and developed into a passion of the subject which in turn included a philosophical viewpoint on, let's say, bird life of one species.

I don't think, as you wrote in the original post, that talk is the reason of being; being has many more reasons deeper than talking, i.e. loving, learning, working, playing, all things you can do in silence.

Again, David, you wrote, "I don't think...." which tells me, the reader, you're unsure of what you are saying.

I say "talk is the result of being hu'man." Our ability to talk comes from the necessity to communicate. Communications is principally the need to know and share what is known.

[David Handeye]

Again, David, you wrote, "I don't think...." which tells me, the reader, you're unsure of what you are saying.

I say "talk is the result of being hu'man." Our ability to talk comes from the necessity to communicate. Communications is principally the need to know and share what is known.

Well, that's just what I am trying to communicate to you
Communication is principally the need to know and share what is known, and only this known can be on philosophy.
Again, I didn't talk to you that I was thinking, I just wrote it.

[mtmynd1]

"... only this known can be on philosophy.

Knowing does not rely upon any philosophy but only one's desire to do so.