Philosophy Now Forum

I don't think anybody can, I believe it's a prerequisite for one to have interest before any philosophizing can be done.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't think anybody can, I believe it's a prerequisite for one to have interest before any philosophizing can be done.

PhilX

I am pretty sure that anyone could theorise, speculate or argue about anything that could be found in a dictionary. Turn to a page, any page, close your eyes and let your fingers do the walking. OK - no prior interest but hey, I found 'sausage dog'.
Not particularly fascinating but just think of the mileage the poor paws work...

It could be argued that it is in our interest to explore even those things which are not in our usual favourites box.
However, when life is short and you need to delve, then clear focus on a specific topic is more valuable.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't think anybody can, I believe it's a prerequisite for one to have interest before any philosophizing can be done.

PhilX

I am pretty sure that anyone could theorise, speculate or argue about anything that could be found in a dictionary. Turn to a page, any page, close your eyes and let your fingers do the walking. OK - no prior interest but hey, I found 'sausage dog'.
Not particularly fascinating but just think of the mileage the poor paws work...

It could be argued that it is in our interest to explore even those things which are not in our usual favourites box.
However, when life is short and you need to delve, then clear focus on a specific topic is more valuable.

What if you're blind?

PhilX

If you can't think of alternatives for the visually impaired then you lack imagination. Not what I would expect from an explorer such as yourself. You have vision.

marjoram_blues wrote:If you can't think of alternatives for the visually impaired then you lack imagination. Not what I would expect from an explorer such as yourself. You have vision.

Braille?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:If you can't think of alternatives for the visually impaired then you lack imagination. Not what I would expect from an explorer such as yourself. You have vision.

Braille?

PhilX

All other senses; any other resources.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:If you can't think of alternatives for the visually impaired then you lack imagination. Not what I would expect from an explorer such as yourself. You have vision.

Braille?

PhilX

All other senses; any other resources.

Getting info from a computer into the brain.

PhilX

Obviously you can. It just won't be any good.

Jaded Sage wrote:Obviously you can. It just won't be any good.

It depends on how you turn the lack of iinterest round; any object can be used as a stepping off, or on, point.
Also on how you determine what is 'good' and at what kind and level of 'philosophizing' peope wish to participate in.

Right now, for fun and play, I could ask simple questions, sticking with my original object.
' Concerning Pee-wee' :
What is it like to be a blind sausage-dog' ?
How likely is he to be friends with another disabled animal, wild or domesticated?
Could he win a race with a tortoise?
Can Pee-wee think?
Does he dream of biting a bored sage's arse?

Yes. As an antinatalist, I philosophize about life, existence and consiousness a lot of the time, but it's clearly not a priority for me.