Posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 2:02:18
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 23:16:08
But why is science respected?
> It's very interesting, I know little of the sciences technically, just what I've stumbled on. I don't know why I don't read more though, it always fascinates me when I do..
I like the theory but too many unrelated facts annoy me...
>>I dub these reality1 and reality2. That is a distinction Kant made...
> Well first, I'm truly not a fan of Kant
I wouldn't say I am a fan. I haven't read any of his stuff...
> but at any rate here is a huge difference in the way we are, period. I'm rarely swayed by an appeal to authority
I am not swayed by appeals to authority when the 'authority' is not an authority in the area of interest. When scientists claim to have discovered the seat or nature of consciousness, when a celebrity tells me that this brand of breakfast cereal is the best. I wouldn't reccomend taking what an 'authority' says to be the end of the matter... but their perspective (especially if they can explain their rationale) is typically worthy of careful thought...
I wasn't saying 'Kant said this so he must be right'. I was saying 'here is a distinction I would like to make and just in case anybody has read their Kant then yes I am getting at precisely that' (insofar as I understand him).
>My main purpose for learning is to, tangibly improve my life in that it helps me appreciate others, what surrounds me, and help me find my own thoughts.
Hmm. Have you done any applied ethics????
> There is a Zen Buddhist Koan, "If you find the Buddha on the road, kill him" that is probably the best way to describe what I mean. Meaning isn't out "there" neatly penned and categorized for me to find, but what has been experienced by others can be a stepping stone for me. I can find what I need as easily from a corner store clerk as a p.h.d.
Sure.I like to try to come up with my own theories of stuff. In reading other people I get new ideas. Sometimes I think 'oh, that is just bollocks - surely it is more like this....' and then off I go. So I use other peoples ideas as a platform - whether I agree with them or not. I also see other people with similar ideas. Sometimes I get all excited because they give me good reasons I had never thought of. But then sometimes I find that so and so's criticism of the person who agreed with me is fairly much fatal to both of our positions... Maybe the difference is that what interests me is hard to get the average person interested in... See, you are getting sick of this conversation already :-)
To start you have to learn a lot of facts...
Or you have to learn a lot of theories...
You have to demonstrate that you understand these theories, or that you can remember those facts.
Then, after a while you have to look for new facts of your own. Or, you have to develop a theory of your own. But the first stuff is supposed to be a solid foundation for the second stuff. So you can communicate the second stuff in a way that people who have done the first stuff can understand.Half the battle is getting someone to understand what you are saying and then tell you what they think.
> I have also witnessed experience and thought altering "reality" or the tangible.I really don't understand what you mean.
> I think you are referring to the different "thinkers", who had the good fortune to be recorded.
Well, they wrote books. You kind of have to do that if you want there to be a record of what you have to say...
>I'm not invalidating them, but the way that's put seems to me to limit the beliefs of others.
But there were lots of unresolved problems with respect to their theories. Problems and contradictions that even they saw at the time of writing. The point is to help fix it up or to show why we shouldn't bother...
> That's the stuff I don't have the stomach for..
> That's what I was referring to when I said it's time for me to go pet the dog, or pick a dandilion.. When I here those theories being discussed I feel like I'm listening to Frasier, except that I enjoy that as self-mocking comedy.?????
Some people just don't like this stuff
Or care...
The ancients didn't keep philosophy from the general public because there were any magic answers. They just realised that the average person wouldn't give a sh*t and that you have to study it for years to get your head around the terminology. Every discipline has its terminology. But much of philosophical terminology doubles as 'ordinary english'. Words such as justice, freedom, should, mind, meaning, life, language, reality, knowledge, belief etc etc are technical terms in philosophy. You could probably divide each up into 3 or 4 senses depending on which 'broad' theory of it that one buys into. Then you need to factor individual idiosyncrasies into the 'received view' theories...Hume used to have to go play backgammon.
I think I just go get stoned or something :-)
> I couldn't possibly know, and I don't want to to try to alphabetize and file the nature of reality.There is a name for that: an 'Ontological Engineer'. Peoples are trying to build 'knowledge representation' databases, listing and filing the whole of human knowledge on computer programs....
> I would think that it makes someone ask questions at all is beginning to free them from rigid thinking.
But sometimes people have rigid answers to questions. Because they don't understand that there is a genuine question / problem there..
> Well, my eyes are buggy and I have p.m.s
> Next I would like to discuss the nature of chocolate.ok. Enough already.
Just ignore whatever... I have had my fix for a while...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:455724
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050205/msgs/456163.html