How do you think we should approach living with mentally lazy/weak people?
As philosophers we study the various philosophies but when when we practice philosophy we take time to understanding faults that can occur to help strengthen our ability to study.
These extra steps in mental training are done so often that we can see the faults of others in daily life with less effort.
As a result you can find yourself living with people who are simple in thought who don't give the extra effort to think from a philosophers perspective.
These extra steps in mental training are done so often that we can see the faults of others in daily life with less effort.
As a result you can find yourself living with people who are simple in thought who don't give the extra effort to think from a philosophers perspective.
Comments (59)
That just about sums it up pretty neatly. This was a nice thread.
Problem is that philosophy is mostly seen in the academic form rather that its literal meaning / practice.
No one teaches philosophy only the philosophy of others and that is what is lacking.
This is a daily experience for me. I've been happily married for 40 years to someone who is just as intelligent and educated as I am, but thoroughly non-philosophical. Our conversations swing wildly back and forth from the big picture to the detailed view. :-) Two of me in the same house would be one and a half too many. :-)
But some is good. Ideally, someone is attempting to stand back and see the larger picture some of the time. But the practical among us will ask, what do you philosopher people intend to do about the big picture? Um, well, er, you see, I mean, we'll get back to you on that....
Yea, I'm not Christian or religious, but I agree with this. The parable method has proven it's value in connecting over thousands of years. You know, the Bible is the best selling book of all time. We don't have to agree with everything in the Bible to appreciate this accomplishment.
Were I religious I might argue that the Bible was deliberately written to address the largest questions in a somewhat vague imprecise inconclusive manner so that we would argue over it's meaning for thousands of years, thus keeping a focus on the largest questions. This might be compared to the skillful philosophy professor who answers every question with another question.
A problem we seem to be having today is that many of us wish to interpret the parables within the scientific paradigm. We often wish for the parables to state clear unambiguous provable fact. But maybe books like the Bible are better compared to art, where one can share deep truths about the human condition within fictional stories.
Quoting Angelo
That is good too, but I think it also takes time, patience and work to put together a parable. At least it does for me.
Granted, there are brilliant people who seem capable of working up a good question or parable off the cuff, but that ain't me. Those people, like Socrates, Jesus, et al, should be sought out. If you find an academic, a professor, or anyone else for that matter, who has mastered the art of the question or parable, latch on to them and don't let go until you've exhausted them, or it's otherwise time to move on.
One final point on the question and the questioner: I think a lot can be discerned in the genuine intellectual curiosity of the person asking the question. If they sincerely want to know what it is that a lazy/weak mind is thinking, the question will not be set up to prove something. It will be set up to understand. And people will often be amazed at what the process reveals.
I wish I had patience and the desire to understand. But some people are insufferable. Like me. :razz:
We are a distribution of varying mental capacity with most in the middle and few at the extremes.
But even if you promote the weakest of us to improve by say 5% then still there is a bottom rung it just so happens to be five percent higher than previously.
It’s all relative and importantly, all necessary.
There are many people who are not "simple in thought" who are not interested in philosophy. The lack of respect you show for others is either 1) not philosophical or 2) a good reason for people to avoid philosophy.
As am I.
Quoting James Riley
It has struck me that it is often the clarity with which a question or idea is presented that is most important. More important that the answer. There's a quote that I really like. I can't remember it or who said it, but here's a paraphrase - Clarity is so unfamiliar it is often mistaken for truth.
HA! Good one. And it explains the appeal of some charlatans. Their followers might call it "brute honesty" and "political incorrectness" or "common sense". It works well with confirmation bias in an echo chamber, and finds it's way into the vernacular of the moron and pseudo-intellectual.
Truth has an awful burden to bear, having to deal with clarity and what not, and it's not always up to the task. Nevertheless, it's out there, somewhere, trudging along.
This is an observation of an assumption, you maybe mistaken when I use philosopher as a context which shows the conclusion of your comment.
I refer to a process of study not philosophy itself, the "lack of respect" as you put it assumes I dont have any without any mention or proof.
As I mentioned before; "simple in thought" refers to their process of study being different, much like how one can lift heavy objects with ease if they train to lift weights.
The title of this discussion - "How do you think we should approach living with mentally lazy/weak people?"
QED.
Yes and I already explained this in the post, dont judge a book by its cover bro.
Another nice proverb is "one man's trash is another man's treasure".
But, what context are you talking about? Living within society? As family and friend? What?
Living within society
And what's the context of this living within society? Talking with people?
That and more, the judgements of others that are so half assed it causes issues for others.
Especially for people who are in higher positions. . .
Its call sociology or social science, were not psychic.
Quoting intpath32
Or a system that fails in education only vaguely grasping bias concepts which leads to "victims of an abusive power structure that never nurtured their creativity but instead scolded and punished it."
Like your doing in your latter comment of:
Quoting intpath32
You contradict yourself.
Each person has one's own place within a society, and many of these places do not require complex philosophical thought, so there is not need to compel these people toward it. What is a problem though, I believe, is bad habits of thought. Bad habits may enter into any field or discipline involved in complex thought, and may in some cases be associated with a form of laziness. For instance, in some cases we are encouraged to accept the principles presented by others whom we apprehend as authorities, without asking for justification. This form of laziness seems to pervade modern academia.
Trading common sense for conformity.
@Tiberiusmoon
So maybe a better term is some kind of Nomadic thinker? (Thinking outside the box to put it loosely)
Vs settled thinking.
I see the word "common sense " has started to come up more in the threads, one wonders why. :-)
+1 with the caveat that in some cases it is less of laziness but more of dogmatic. Perhaps even a lack of intelligence.
yeeeaahh, common sense is not rational sense but a culturally biased sense.
Because common sense is in itself a culturally biased assumption of logic.
Which is why the practice of philosophy is so important.
Rather, common sense is rooted in intelligence, than philosophical or academic biases. But it may require common sense to see this.
Common sense should be more common! I mean there are things that are obvious to non academically-corrupted folk.
I totally agree with @skyblack here @Tiberiusmoon.
To think common sense is culturally biased is to fall foul of postmodern skepticism.
I get the dictionary term which supports your view on this, but if you break it down fundamentally of common and sense you have the majority or common group of people who view sense by their own standards of which may not be up to our expectation.
Quoting Tiberiusmoon
Which may be non-sense.
Common non-sense?
Could also be that the word sense itself is a observationally biased one.
:-)
Your viewpoint here Is leading to skepticism on even the senses.
Its not uncommon to consider such things, much like how time dilation is observed differently between an external and internal observer.
I usually consider such things when perspectives are involved. :)
Yes, and the topic of observational bias being considered in other subject matters is just as vaild for consideration. -The blind men and the elephant.
When I look at a tree what is the observational bias?
Depends on your perspective, if you are 20inches away looking forward you may only see a tree trunk, if you look straight up you only see tree branches, if you are 20 meters away you can see the whole tree.
If a person was only ever 20inches away looking straight at a tree trunk and you who can see the whole tree from your perspective, told that person that the tree is green and brown would disagree because from their perspective it is only a brown tree trunk.
The observational bias being all you see is assuming that its all their is to it.
The point is from common sense we would say it's a tree. That's not a bias. Bias and perspective are different.
And who assumes all you see is all there is? When I see a tree from the front I know it also has a back,even though I don't see it.
In real life these pseudo biases on common sense matters are vastly overblown.
Your response reminds me again of common sense...
You clearly don't understand the meaning of "The blind men and the elephant" then.
Or fail to see how it can be used in other subject matter in order to understand my meaning.
Why not address what I wrote?
I get it to but your observation is narrow minded, you are just distorting my comment to suit your argument with a strawman fallacy.
Moral of "the blind men and the elephant":
The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.
Everyone has a subjective experience of common sense, it is this experience that is based on influence which can differ from other peoples perspectives.
It is this that creates bias in what they assume to be common sense.
If you want to assume common knowledge of common sense to be an unbiased judgement then go ahead. :D
1.based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Or
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
I see no issue, a lot of influences can create cultural biases.
Quoting Mystic
Your still not getting it are you?
The story is about blind men with limited observational ability who assume their observation is all that there is to observe by touch from one perspective.
Such assumption leads to argument between others who observe the same elephant from different perspectives.
In this instance your limited observation is what you observe of common sense to be, but you do not share that same observation with how other people see common sense and assume everyone shares that observation.
Which is why your debating with me now.
Everything is subjective. Can you tell me anything that doesn't come from your mind when you speak? Note,I don't mean objects exist only in your mind,I mean your perception of an object is from your mind,always!
If you think truth is some kind of democratic elephant modelling exercise then I will just say do you need six men to tell you you are not an elephant? Is your faith in your own perspective that weak?
[ ... ]
I was almost choked by my question: What? does life require even the rabble? Are poisoned wells required, and stinking fires and soiled dreams and maggots in the bread of life?[/quote]
Quoting Tiberiusmoon
"Learn to be indifferent to what makes no difference." ~Seneca
Furthermore, be mindful of
[quote=Epictetus]An ignorant person is inclined to blame others for his own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise man never has to blame another or himself.[/quote]
:fire:
At least scholars of philosophy offer up better mediums through which true thinkers can access and assess what groundwork others have laid down over millennia.
Note: Personally I think getting deep into philosophical study is likely to form early bias for youthful students (ie. practically anyone under 30) because most people that young are hardly likely to know anything much due to lack of experience. The boon of youth is naivety. Raw curiosity and intrigue are better earlier on than filling your head with the thoughts of others and calling them your own.
This is the most philosophical answer I have seen so far. :clap:
The most lazy and weak answer sofar. Not even an attempt was made to use the capital A. Great! :lol: