Philosophy Now Forum

Reasonvemotion

Just to make it perfectly clear, you have a degree in Philosophy? Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.; occasionally B.Ph. or Ph.B.) is the title of an academic degree.

Considering the degree usually involves, notably, a large amount of research, either through a thesis or supervised research projects, you would not fraudently say you had achieved this, without the actuality of it would you? As you are asking us to pursue the truth, "I would feel comfortable" with the knowledge I was being led by an academic in this field.

How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye .'

Thundril wrote:

That may well be so. But not being much of a liberal myself, my response to other people's actions may vary from an indifferent shrug to passionate support or opposition. Depends how important the issue seems to me at the time, and what the most effective course of action seems to be at the time, and also, quite honestly, whether I can be arsed.

Your responses are not the issue. The issue is can you accept that there need not be
sameness to coexist.

Reasonvemotion
Just to make it perfectly clear, you have a degree in Philosophy? Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.; occasionally B.Ph. or Ph.B.) is the title of an academic degree.

Considering the degree usually involves, notably, a large amount of research, either through a thesis or supervised research projects, you would not fraudulently say you had achieved this, without the actuality of it would you? As you are asking us to pursue the truth, "I would feel comfortable" with the knowledge I was being led by an academic in this field.

NB last sentenced was edited by reasonvemotion to read
As it stands, "I don't feel comfortable" with the answer "I am comfortable saying I am a philosopher".

My apologies.

TJH
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye .'

Reasonvemotion


“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

TJH, thank you for your responses re Thought Experiments, from which I have noted the following as my summary of your responses:-
1. they are focussed solely within and for this forum;
2. they are being conducted by you to foster philosophical deliberation and make a philosophical point about philosophical enquiry and its limitations;
3. you are acting a rouge, with the intention of monitoring and reporting on reciprocal rogue behaviour;
4. you intend to continue with them, at your will;
5. analysis will take place within the Sunday Sermon topics;

6. and that, following on from this, the implication I perceive is that the Thought Experiments will be conducted in the other areas of the forum, which I would see resulting in topics being made vulnerable to subterfuge, as forum members could never be entirely convinced that they are taking part in a discussion or an experiment unless topics were specifically disclosed in advance as experiments, and the potential to adversely impact on the stability of the forum.

The Jesus Head wrote:In thought experiment 2 we witnessed what I described as an unruly entanglement of conflict .
Here we see little evidence of philosophical thought and nothing of agreement and harmony. ...

Of which a large part was you. So are we looking at a self-fulfilling example of philosophical thought?

The inheritance of Enlightenment thinking and ,by that, I mean thinking which
derives from religious notions , suggests that there is a perfect answer to a provisional diversity of human values and ,when this is found ,we will truly understand the way we must live our lives. This ,however, is nothing but a faith.

Its an assumption that there is such a thing as 'human values' even tho' you attempt to disguise it with the idea of a "provisional diversity of human values". Whenever one hears the idea of "The inheritance of Enlightenment thinking" one should be aware that the speaker is, in general, tying to sell you something. However, I agree that many seek for an absolute answer to stuff and it well may be an inheritance of some sort.

Isaiah Berlin, the 20th century philosopher, found this idea
wholly unacceptable . In John Gray’s remarkable book “Gray’s Anatomy ”
he describes the thoughts of his close friend Isaiah Berlin .

Berlin writes : “ we find the same common assumption that the answer to all great questions must necessarily agree with one another, for they must correspond with reality, and reality is a harmonious whole. If this were not so there is chaos in the heart of things which is unthinkable .”

Nice turn of phrase but Physics gave up 'The Truth' for 'Probably True' a long time back and Epistemology still survived. That the Sciences still seek harmony in a probabilistic 'chaotic' world just points to how our reason works. He'd have to say what these "great questions" are I think, he meant "Whats the point!"?

No doubt many on this forum believe in Enlightenment values that they have the ultimate truth and yet there is little evidence of agreement on this forum.
Thus, their lives are spent attempting to persuade the intransigent that their world
view is correct.

Some here, I think, doubt the whole terms "Enlightenment values" and "ultimate truth"but then we've studied. What value an interweeb forum in these matters?

But, in a sense, even if we were to believe in the singularity of truth it would not
promote harmony. Human deliberation is not part of the subject it analyses.
It is a faculty brought to bear on an exterior mechanism.
To say that something is true or untrue does not change the nature of the subject.
This means that the subject is a perception and can be many things .
This accounts for the conflict of ideas and shows us that Enlightenment thinking is merely a dogma.

Not even that but a myth promoted by those with a political agenda in general.

"To say that something is true or untrue does not change the nature of the subject.", what do you mean by this?

"To say that something is true or untrue does not change the nature of the subject.
This means that the subject is a perception and can be many things ." Then the "nature of the subject" is unknowable and yet you make a statement about it?

It is not possible to find a singular answer to the question is the colour black
good or bad, ...

Its not even a question that has any sense?

if forced to choose one or the other . In our world , many values have a constitution such as is posed by this kind of question . Value has , therefore, an inherent propensity to be subjective and therefore to cause disagreement .

Then better to teach philosophy and as such to understand that there is no choice as there is no question?

So where does this leave one in terms of the practice of philosophy?

Pretty valuable and fairly health and strong I'd say.

On this forum your perpetual arguments are ,in a sense fruitless , in achieving
agreement. Not because the arguments are necessarily flawed ,but because
the arguments are not in alignment , with the ultimate goal of a singular truth.

You are banging-up a strawman as upon this forum its very rare to hear the 'perpetual arguments' and only a few argue for this "ultimate goal of a singular truth." and they tend to be the godbotherers.

One correspondent here declared “pearls before swine” .
Socrates met his fate because he valued more the pursuit of a singular truth than
he recognized the nature of humanity . ...

Disagree he committed suicide because he was at the end of a good life and wanted to go out with a bang, given he "recognized the nature of humanity". Plato given the same choice legged it as he wasn't an old git.

The failure of many a philosopher resides in the fact that there is an aspiration to discover a truth which is a truth for everyone.

I think it the point of Philosophy numbnuts and Marx got the closest so far and your Gray is trying the same thing, and in your case appears to have succeeded. Phenomenology is the future of Philosophy in my opinion.

In the notable case of Arising
Picking over the bones of forum posts, as we see in the case of the above, is a kind of psychotic episode of pedantic mischief.But also a deep seated need to be appreciated and respected
[when , undoubtedly, in the real world, he finds no such regard]
What we observe in such a case is the mimicry of philosophical ideas .
If someone were foolish enough to participate in this labyrinth of illogical thought
it would not produce much sense . There is a well known phrase "bullshit baffles brains".

This, in effect ,means that gobbledygook is set against well thought out ideas . Nothing can ever come of this.It is the engine room of propaganda.
It is known that Psychopaths on forums take great pleasure in "dismembering" their opponents
responses, line by line,such as in the example we see above. It is a gesture of complete control .It is also a ritual of anger .
Whilst for the purposes of my analysis here it is worth bringing up I would caution anyone against engaging with such a person because you will not get anywhere and your time should have some value to you.

Lynn wrote:TJH, thank you for your responses re Thought Experiments, from which I have noted the following as my summary of your responses:-
1. they are focussed solely within and for this forum;
2. they are being conducted by you to foster philosophical deliberation and make a philosophical point about philosophical enquiry and its limitations;
3. you are acting a rouge, with the intention of monitoring and reporting on reciprocal rogue behaviour;
4. you intend to continue with them, at your will;
5. analysis will take place within the Sunday Sermon topics;

6. and that, following on from this, the implication I perceive is that the Thought Experiments will be conducted in the other areas of the forum, which I would see resulting in topics being made vulnerable to subterfuge, as forum members could never be entirely convinced that they are taking part in a discussion or an experiment unless topics were specifically disclosed in advance as experiments, and the potential to adversely impact on the stability of the forum.

Then no one should participate in my threads, if they are not happy with the potential to be
philosophically analysed and ,by this token, no one should participate with anyone on a philosophical forum. I would say that to suggest this forum has stability is overwhelmingly amusing.

Please note that I will not be answering any further questions here since, jousting is not for me and time is money, as they say.

The Jesus Head wrote:Please note that I will not be answering any further questions here since, jousting is not for me and time is money, as they say.

An open discussion forum is always going to attract all kinds of contributors.
I find it useful, (having a not-great memory), to place contributions (and contributors, insofar as their contributions might represent the actual person) on one or more 'sliding scales', just for the purpose of classifying, remembering who's who, and so on.
At one extreme of one particular scale, there are those seeking to understand the minds of others without exposing their own minds to examination. These I call 'introvert'. (This is not meant as a put down nor as relating to anything anyone actually trained in psychology might mean by the term. It's just my short-hand).
At the other extreme are those wishing to disseminate their own profundities without listening to anyone else. I label these 'extrovert'.
Most contributions fall somewhere in between these two extremes. These I remember as 'debaters'.
So far, TJH claims to be conducting a thought experiment, using other contributors as subjects; and refuses to answer probing questions. This suggests he belongs quite close to the first extreme.. Time will tell...
It would be nice, however, to know if he actually has any thoughts of his own.

The Jesus Head wrote:The issue is can you accept that there need not be
sameness to coexist.

Of course. But so what?

The Jesus Head wrote:

Lynn wrote:6. and that, following on from this, the implication I perceive is that the Thought Experiments will be conducted in the other areas of the forum, which I would see resulting in topics being made vulnerable to subterfuge, as forum members could never be entirely convinced that they are taking part in a discussion or an experiment unless topics were specifically disclosed in advance as experiments, and the potential to adversely impact on the stability of the forum.

Then no one should participate in my threads, if they are not happy with the potential to be
philosophically analysed.

If you are restricting your Thought Experiments to the topics which you create, then the forum members can then make an informed choice whether to participate or not - in both topic and experiment...

The Jesus Head wrote:In the notable case of Arising
Picking over the bones of forum posts, as we see in the case of the above, is a kind of psychotic episode of pedantic mischief. ...

Or that each post addresses the different statement made.

I assume you'd say that Socrates was a psychotic pendant? As he questioned each and every statement his interlocutors made.

What is your diagnosis of those who claim to be a philosopher but in the main refuse to answer questions put to them but choose the ad hominem approach?

But also a deep seated need to be appreciated and respected
[when , undoubtedly, in the real world, he finds no such regard] ...

You need a full-stop here but I have no need for this as the bits of paper I have say differently. Can you say the same?

What we observe in such a case is the mimicry of philosophical ideas .

Nope, what you have is agreement with some ideas I've studied. You know, like you with John Gray's ideas.

If someone were foolish enough to participate in this labyrinth of illogical thought
it would not produce much sense . There is a well known phrase "bullshit baffles brains".

The problem with this is that it doesn't, especially in Philosophy where the phrase "You can't bullshit the bullshitters" is more apt. Show me where my thought was illogical?

This, in effect ,means that gobbledygook is set against well thought out ideas . Nothing can ever come of this.It is the engine room of propaganda. ...

I think yours the propaganda as when questioned about your assertions that you use to promote whatever it is that you are promoting, Gray's ideas I think, you avoid answering.

It is known that Psychopaths on forums take great pleasure in "dismembering" their opponents
responses, line by line,such as in the example we see above. It is a gesture of complete control .It is also a ritual of anger . ...

I don't think you are psychotic nor a qualified psychiatrist and would be interested in your results to these tests,
http://kevin-goodman.com/?page_id=1229
http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-ar ... path-test2
http://www.counseling-office.com/survey ... athy.phtml, as mine say close but no cigar.

Whilst for the purposes of my analysis here it is worth bringing up I would caution anyone against engaging with such a person because you will not get anywhere and your time should have some value to you.

That'd be your considered qualified opinion would it?

Dismembering someone´s statements is a means of control ?

But the controllee can so easily escape. He can just skip the posts he does not like and thus perhaps enrage the would-be controller because the latter´s meticulous efforts were not even paid attention to.

And if the dismembering is helpful then the dismembered poster can check the objections one by one and train himself.

It is up to the controllee. The controllee is the winner either way.

TJH
This is interesting. The failure to get this project of the ground, is entirely your fault. By avoidance of just a simple question, you created mistrust and lack of respect. This experience, whilst you say, we are denying ourselves, "philsophical" scrutiny, you, in turn, have denied yourself the opportunity, to look inwardly and see who you are. What is lacking in you is humor, the ability to laugh at yourself occasionally. In spite of all this you have much to offer.

Arising_uk wrote:

I assume you'd say that Socrates was a psychotic pendant? As he questioned each and every statement his interlocutors made.

This is the problem my friend you actually see yourself as a modern day Socrates.
[and you seem to have forgotten what happened to him]
It appears not to have struck you that no one actually does more than speed read your
remarks thus skipping the labour of thought you put in.
Just imagine what you could achieve in the real world if you put such effort into real things.
Your whole life revolves around a forum with the likes of the people we see here who few would wish to talk to in any real social setting.

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith said on his deathbed "I wish I had drunk more champagne".
The futility of academic life had struck him at his end.
No one is interested in what you have to say here and the one's who do take the trouble to read what you have to say well look at them !
What you are doing is sheer madness and I suspect that you know it is.