Philosophy Now Forum

Grok:
1] understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
"because of all the commercials, children grok things immediately"

2] empathize or communicate sympathetically; establish a rapport.
"nestling earth couple would like to find water brothers to grok with in peace"

"When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning. Once you grok your best friend's sense of humor, her jokes won't confuse you but will instead make you laugh hysterically. The informal verb grok was an invention of the science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok


Okay, so given that, how might grokking be applicable to that which most interests me in regard to philosophy:

"How ought one to live in a No God world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change."

And, no, not metaphysically...existentially.

In other words, given a particular set of circumstances.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:30 pm Grok:
1] understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
"because of all the commercials, children grok things immediately"

2] empathize or communicate sympathetically; establish a rapport.
"nestling earth couple would like to find water brothers to grok with in peace"

"When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning. Once you grok your best friend's sense of humor, her jokes won't confuse you but will instead make you laugh hysterically. The informal verb grok was an invention of the science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok


Okay, so given that, how might grokking be applicable to that which most interests me in regard to philosophy:

"How ought one to live in a No God world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change."

And, no, not metaphysically...existentially.

In other words, given a particular set of circumstances.

I don’t understand the question. Is it “how ought one to live” in such a world as in what ought we to do (is this a moral question)?

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:43 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:30 pm Grok:
1] understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
"because of all the commercials, children grok things immediately"

2] empathize or communicate sympathetically; establish a rapport.
"nestling earth couple would like to find water brothers to grok with in peace"

"When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning. Once you grok your best friend's sense of humor, her jokes won't confuse you but will instead make you laugh hysterically. The informal verb grok was an invention of the science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok


Okay, so given that, how might grokking be applicable to that which most interests me in regard to philosophy:

"How ought one to live in a No God world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change."

And, no, not metaphysically...existentially.

In other words, given a particular set of circumstances.

I don’t understand the question. Is it “how ought one to live” in such a world as in what ought we to do (is this a moral question)?

Yes.

Every day the news media inundates us with "conflicting goods". What William Barrett called "rival goods" in Irrational Man:

"For the choice in [human relationships] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us."

Now, if I grok grok correctly, some are able to, what, "just know" -- intuitively? viscerally? -- "in their gut" what is right and what is wrong?

Whereas from my frame of mind evil itself [in a No God world] is derived existentially from the life we lived. And that includes our intuitive, visceral self in turn. There may be an objective evil but in the absence of God how would one go about demonstrating that?

Only in order to explore this fully we need to bring our own moral convictions down out of the "philosophical", "theoretical", "conceptual", "metaphysical" clouds and examine them given our own subjective reaction to those endless political conflagrations "in the news".

Why do we do this and not that? How is that related to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529