Its About Philosophy, ......

[coberst]

Its About Philosophy, ……

Descartes’ legacy to all of us via philosophy can be labeled, I think, as rationalism (discovery of truth through pure reason), dichotomy (mind/body split), and certainty. Even though very few of us know anything about philosophy, almost everything we think results from the philosophy we inherit through social osmosis (unconscious assimilation). Philosophy theory permeates almost all of our mental gymnastics without our conscious recognition.

I speculate that such is true because it fits well for the ego of all humans, especially philosophers, and because it also fits well with the interests of the Christian faith. Descartes’ legacy makes it easy to place our self in a hierarchy of being with humans one step below God and a giant step above animals. If one thinks about it too much we might have difficulty eating the progeny our own ancestors.

If we want to understand our self and our world we will necessarily have to learn some bit of philosophy. That is when we can begin to appreciate certain theories of philosophy. We become interested in philosophy when we begin to ask questions that go to the ‘root’ of the matter.

Someone said that only one person in a thousand ever “strikes at the root”. I do not think a liberal democracy in a hi-tech world can survive if such remains to be true. Hi-tech gives us the ability to easily destroy our self and our world; liberal democracy makes all citizens to be sovereign and thus responsible in some small way for the integrity of our existence.

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think we may be in trouble.

[chonsigirl]

I prefer my revision of Descartes...........................

[Richard Bell]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out consume

Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya

'bout the raisin' of the wrist.

Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away,

'alf a crate of whiskey every day!

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:

"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

-M. Python

R.B.

[OpenMind]

Very well dragged up from the archives, Richard.:wah:

I laugh and get bellyache and I know I'm hurting therefore I must be.

[weeder]

coberst wrote: Its About Philosophy, ……

Descartes’ legacy to all of us via philosophy can be labeled, I think, as rationalism (discovery of truth through pure reason), dichotomy (mind/body split), and certainty. Even though very few of us know anything about philosophy, almost everything we think results from the philosophy we inherit through social osmosis (unconscious assimilation). Philosophy theory permeates almost all of our mental gymnastics without our conscious recognition.

I speculate that such is true because it fits well for the ego of all humans, especially philosophers, and because it also fits well with the interests of the Christian faith. Descartes’ legacy makes it easy to place our self in a hierarchy of being with humans one step below God and a giant step above animals. If one thinks about it too much we might have difficulty eating the progeny our own ancestors.

If we want to understand our self and our world we will necessarily have to learn some bit of philosophy. That is when we can begin to appreciate certain theories of philosophy. We become interested in philosophy when we begin to ask questions that go to the ‘root’ of the matter.

Someone said that only one person in a thousand ever “strikes at the root”. I do not think a liberal democracy in a hi-tech world can survive if such remains to be true. Hi-tech gives us the ability to easily destroy our self and our world; liberal democracy makes all citizens to be sovereign and thus responsible in some small way for the integrity of our existence.

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think we may be in trouble.
Do you have many friends? Do you really want to inspire a dialogue?

[OpenMind]

Quite often I find that I cannot think of a suitable reply to Coberst's posts. Rather the opposite. They are statements and I enjoy reading them. They are attempts at an intelligent understanding of various aspects of human life and experience and must take some time to compose. This is the main reason that I cannot post replies, simply because of the time. They are not humorous and probably fly over the head of many Gardeners. But I admire Coberst's tenacity if nothing else since he seldom gets a reply to his threads other than comments that simply do not match the effort of his posts.

An interest in the deeper aspects of human experience is no less a subject than an interest in the universe, particle physics, medicine, and so on. all of which are debated on this forum. Likewise, I do not have as much time as I would like to get deeply involved with those threads either.

By posting a thread, I presume that Coberst is inviting comment, preferably relative to the subject of his post. Most of the time, I should think that Coberst thinks that he must be searching for extraterrestrial life.

[koan]

coberst wrote: Its About Philosophy, ……

Descartes’ legacy to all of us via philosophy can be labeled, I think, as rationalism (discovery of truth through pure reason), dichotomy (mind/body split), and certainty. Even though very few of us know anything about philosophy, almost everything we think results from the philosophy we inherit through social osmosis (unconscious assimilation). Philosophy theory permeates almost all of our mental gymnastics without our conscious recognition.


social osmosis. I like that. Not sure if I agree, but it's a fabulous term. The Age of Reason has its upside and downside. The process of rationalisation, like other processes, becomes about the continuation of its own existence and loses its ideology over time. I was struck, by the wording of this paragraph, with the feeling that you credit philosophy with the higher intellect of man and not the reverse. I don't think we inherit philosophy or its theory, we give birth to it. We also become slaves to the past. Ideas are building blocks. Doorways that do not lead to closed rooms. I think we tend to credit our deeper thoughts as philosophy too often. Sometimes the credit belongs to one too many ales. I would say that psychological motives are more subtle but there are not many who have asked "why?" and not realised they were philosophising.

I speculate that such is true because it fits well for the ego of all humans, especially philosophers, and because it also fits well with the interests of the Christian faith. Descartes’ legacy makes it easy to place our self in a hierarchy of being with humans one step below God and a giant step above animals. If one thinks about it too much we might have difficulty eating the progeny our own ancestors.


Nietzsche said we have killed God and John Ralston Saul (Voltaire's Bastards) adds that we've replaced him with ourselves. Having decided that the ability to reason is a trait specific to man we also decided that it is the trait of a superior animal. The whole point of the 'discovery' is a quest to find out what makes us better than animals in the first place so the conclusion is not very scientific.

If we want to understand our self and our world we will necessarily have to learn some bit of philosophy. That is when we can begin to appreciate certain theories of philosophy. We become interested in philosophy when we begin to ask questions that go to the ‘root’ of the matter.


Gematria, while considered to be a science by its practitioners, is seen by some to be merely an exercise in defeating the mind so that it may perceive silence and stop trying too hard. I believe philosophy serves the same, useful, purpose. I think the questions are always being asked, just not out loud. In which case the answer may be found by not thinking.

Someone said that only one person in a thousand ever “strikes at the root”. I do not think a liberal democracy in a hi-tech world can survive if such remains to be true. Hi-tech gives us the ability to easily destroy our self and our world; liberal democracy makes all citizens to be sovereign and thus responsible in some small way for the integrity of our existence.

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think we may be in trouble.


Siddhartha finally found enlightenment by listening to the river. If 'striking at the root' in a manner that gains listeners and support from the acedemic community is the goal then I wonder if a search for 'truth' is really the aim. If recognition is not the measuring factor then I believe that far more than one in a thousand have moments of truth and/or enlightenment. It is just the noise from our surroundings that causes it to be forgotten or drown out.

We don't live in a democracy. Some have added "thank God" to that statement. I believe acting as if it were a democracy, and being offended when it is not, is a good starting point towards responsibility. This is a bit of a drift from philosophy and turning to politics. Which is it you wish to focus on? From your topic title I would think it is the former, in which case I'll make my closing comment:

The Inquisition thought it was entirely rational to smash a person's fingers or stretch their body until their joints popped out in order to get them to speak the 'truth', which the inquisitors apparently already knew before questioning began. They even had a scribe to record every word spoken throughout in order to prove their reason and rationality.

-paraphrased from Voltaire's Bastards (I thought it such a clever observation)

[coberst]

Weeder

Weeder asks--"Do you have many friends? Do you really want to inspire a dialogue?"

Not enough friends! I would love a dialogue. Do you think my assesment of Descartes' legacy to be valid? If so do you think this legacy is unhealthy for us as I do?

[coberst]

Open Mind

You display great insight.

It is my opinion that seldom are our citizens exposed to ideas that might encourage a turn toward developing an intellectual life. I write with the hope that occasionally someone might find something that will arouse their curiosity to the extent that they will develop questions and seek answers to those questions. I suspect that those individuals who are aroused will require much time and thought to pursue their answers. Quick replies are not as desirable as long searching quests for answers.

[coberst]

Koan

It appears that you are more tuned into Eastern thought than I. But in regards to philosophy or politics I think that each of us needs some philosophy so that we know when our political leaders are 'smoking' us. Propaganda fills the air and if we have never learned how to think we are inclined to follow whatever herd is near by. It seems to me that too often we tend to be bovines in nature--either running in the herd or staring vacuously into space.

I will hit you with one of my essays on CT. If you have already seen it I apologize if not it will explain why I do what I do.



I once asked a philosophy professor “What is philosophy about?” He said philosophy is “radically critical self-consciousness”. This was 35 years ago. Only in the last five years have I begun to understand that statement

I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what “radically critical self-consciousness” meant.

I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.

Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.

I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usage”such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.

The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.

If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.

The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.

Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.

If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.

I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.

A good place to begin CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[weeder]

Coberst...Please forgive my flippant response. It was very out of character for me.

Im thinking it was a good example of Descartes reflex theory. My tired body, certainly did, and does effect my mind. I think that Descartes became so lost in intellectual reflection, that his views were not influenced at all by life experiences.

He was totally absorbed in a world he created for himself, and the concepts he shared, were perhaps, not always rational. It is amusing to observe behavior in humans that reflects the nature of animals. However for me to believe that animal spirits inhabit the body in any location...is just out of the question for me. But then,you did also motivate me to investigate critical thinking. I find and admit that my information gathering skills have become limited, and lazy. I have gathered an incredible amount of food for thought here this morning. Im thinking that many of my own oulooks have been purely influenced by my own life experiences,and I am no longer considering information from all sources. Once again, I do apologize

for being rude. It might amuse you to know that "my friends" nicknamed me turtle

a couple of years ago. I was going to just live with that.. I thought it was appropriate. Here, this morning Ive started to think, it might be time for me to crawl out of my shell. Thank you for sharing thought provoking, and valuable topics.