Philosophy beyond my and anyone cognitive capability?
Lately I dabbled into more loaded concepts in philosophy in area of epistemology and metaphysics and it had some very loaded concepts that are difficult to grasp for me (at least without loaded knowledge about terminology used thus requiring a lot of crystallized intelligence), whether is there a much point into learning more about it (in fact I still have trouble of understanding extent of what falls under epistemology and metaphysics). Now I had no issues with basic concepts such as rudimentary knowledge about syllogism such as premises, conclusions, validity and soundness etc in addition to knowledge about various logical fallacies, rudimentary conception of values and some other fairly still basic concepts.
Now, I'm not sure if there is even point of me getting into as I may not be smart enough handle more complex material and logic (hell, even logic seems to have various types of logic such as classical logic and just recently learned about other types of logic and concept of logical pluralism) and even if I were amount of material on philosophy is astronomical (after all there are collections of philosophical works and arguments going through millenia). Then even if I did all of it by some miracle it still seems like a pit with no bottom and all arguments ultimately would collapse if you keep asking questions such as why or how, no matter how smart you're and how much available knowledge regarding philosophy you acquired. Those mentioned aren't the only issues, even if I decided to pursue acquiring knowledge in that direction I would have to do so incrementally and doing learning terminology and methods applied in philosophy from the basics (not sure where I would even start).
Essentially I'm now faced with a choice whether pursue path of learning in that direction that may ultimately lead me nowhere (Which I think is likely) and perhaps even won't be of use to me (unlike science that essentially seems to accept empirical framework of acquiring knowledge and even then there is a lot to learn about philosophy behind it) or essentially proceed to leave in ignorance and of that little I know and avoiding going too deep into things. Not sure what to chose.
Now, I'm not sure if there is even point of me getting into as I may not be smart enough handle more complex material and logic (hell, even logic seems to have various types of logic such as classical logic and just recently learned about other types of logic and concept of logical pluralism) and even if I were amount of material on philosophy is astronomical (after all there are collections of philosophical works and arguments going through millenia). Then even if I did all of it by some miracle it still seems like a pit with no bottom and all arguments ultimately would collapse if you keep asking questions such as why or how, no matter how smart you're and how much available knowledge regarding philosophy you acquired. Those mentioned aren't the only issues, even if I decided to pursue acquiring knowledge in that direction I would have to do so incrementally and doing learning terminology and methods applied in philosophy from the basics (not sure where I would even start).
Essentially I'm now faced with a choice whether pursue path of learning in that direction that may ultimately lead me nowhere (Which I think is likely) and perhaps even won't be of use to me (unlike science that essentially seems to accept empirical framework of acquiring knowledge and even then there is a lot to learn about philosophy behind it) or essentially proceed to leave in ignorance and of that little I know and avoiding going too deep into things. Not sure what to chose.
Comments (17)
My advice would be to avoid philosophy unless you find yourself unable to. Whatever direction you take, science, politics, social work, there is a philosophy thereof that questions the methods and principles of the topic. If you keep finding yourself concerned with these questions, then alas you are a philosopher and you will have to do the hard work, of trying to understand the roots of things.
Go away from this site at once. Or if you find yourself unable to leave, welcome to our world.
The point is to realize how little we know and actually recognize this. Even in science, many questions answered tends to lead to ten more questions.
See if you can mix a bit, no need for an all or nothing approach. But the few people who I consider to be geniuses, all come to the same conclusion: we attain a little knowledge, then we go.
Before I retired, I was interested in Science and Philosophy, but my time was mostly wasted in the rat-race of making a living. Now that "living" is behind me, and I am merely waiting for rigor mortis to set-in, I am free to work for free. And the only practical product of my valuable time is increased confidence that I have a reasonable worldview. That, and [s]50cents[/s] [s]five[/s] ten dollars will buy you a cup of nutritious cappuccino. :joke:
:up: Quoting Manuel
:up:
We might add an appreciation of the little we know, which has seriously improved things for the species so far.
I think you mean beyond capability. Though capapability sounds nice too! Gay papa, bility? :smile:
The little we know? Mankind has never gathered that much knowledge in it's entire history! The urge for endless knowledge searching reigns Supreme on our planet. You sound like sir Popper with his urge for endless falsification and pursuit of new knowledge to falsify previous knowledge, giving a feeling of endless unrest. Your remark about the appreciation of the the little we know, humbling as it may sound, fits perfectly in this doctrine!
This sounds grand and dramatic, but it boils down to clever primates constantly trying to make their lives a little better.
About half of humans died as children not that long ago. It also hasn't been all that long since we became aware of germs, learned how to make vaccines. The average person now lives better than royals did for centuries (neglecting of course the human tendencies toward vainglory and envy.)
In short, it's good to remain humble, but it's absurd to pretend that we've learned nothing while using a near-instantaneous global information network. (We're like rich brats, taking our inherited wealth for granted. (This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for an even better lifestyle, one that treats the less fortunate, other animals, and our spaceship itself with more respect.))
That's very true. :up:
Now that sounds even more dramatic. In the litteral sense. Quoting hanaH
The usual propaganda babble in favor of the scientists claiming a way of thinking and acting to which all must comply. Claiming to have the only truthfully worldview. Ridiculing other kinds of cultures, which are so eagerly studied by anthropologists (Florina Donner is an exception, though I don't know all of them, of course), who don't give a damn if these ways of living were wiped out apart from the fact that their study objects are gone, like botanists wouldn't give a damn about the extinction of flowers and plants apart from the same fact. I have seen this written litterally! WTF is this eagerness for knowledge? To improve our lives? People in all cultures try to do that. Besides your list of advantages I could make a big list of disadvantages, like in all cultures. The difference is that the lists in the scientific world are so big (and inflating!) that Nature is done irreversible harm. How many species have gone extinct already? How much harm is already done to the bottoms of the oceans? How many storms and fires will blow heavier or burn brighter and more frequently. "Science will find a solution!" Yeah yeah, my ass... Fixing what it caused in the first place. Like the Hopi said, if continuing this way, ashes will fall from the sky one day, released from heavenly containers. How right they are! And they have (had, soon enough!), no science, no knowledge in the abstract western way. You would probably say their worldview is wrong... Like you are so sure there are no gods (if not, then where does our universe come from, even if eternal?).
Quoting hanaH
Who pretends we have learned nothing?
:smile:
I come to philosophy through science via epistemology. I'm an engineer. I want to know things. Questions about how I know what I know draw me in. I am drawn to philosophy by the things that are important to me.
Do you feel any draw from philosophy? If not, maybe you don't need to go any farther. One more thought, though. I've spent more than five years on philosophy forums. I think and write much more clearly than I did when I started. Maybe you can get that from science or some other intellectual discipline.
Also, I know lots of really smart, successful, satisfied, and articulate people who are not particularly intellectual. They are not recreational thinkers like I, and many people on the forum, are.
You mean insofar money-making is involved?
You address whether the claim was true (but why should that matter, right? we're on a spiritual quest here.)
Quoting GraveItty
Sure, but half of the children dying is maybe a high cost to pay for your closer walk with nature ? (And chances are, if you survived childhood, you'd be illiterate and laboring in the dirt with gum disease?)
Quoting GraveItty
I don't know that certain ultimate questions even make sense, let alone the answers to them. But certain "divine" answers to those questionable questions either also fail to make sense or look like childish wishful thinking. As in ordinary life, one need not know the final answer or solution of a problem to reject various candidate solutions from consideration. I understand that for others it's troubling to consider the possibility that the universe doesn't care about us, that we didn't come with instructions in the box, etc.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Manuel
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting unenlightened
:death: :flower:
I don't address that claim is true or not, that's another part of the propaganda. The search for so-called Truth... Aaaah, yes. The Truth. How much suffering has been seen in it's name! What "spiritual quest" in heaven's name are you talking about?
Quoting hanaH
Again the same babble.Half of the children dying? We're did you get that from? Why do you think people in the so-called third world (how presumptious!) ended up in that state? Western society (science-, technology-based, with an on and on going desire to inflate) has transformed the world in its own pitty-image Science won't make their place a better one, by the way. Of course you can use it to eliminate gum-disease. Or give people clean energy, if they want. Just place solar panels on every roof and use hydrogen technology to make it portable. But why should they conform to the scientific standard and Western democracy?
How many children suffer, and have suffered, from the scientific approach? What caused the atom bomb, which were already dropped and tested in far-away regions, to keep the children here safe. Their thread is still with us. Hildreth were taken away from their parents to teach them the "right" way (in Australia), Thousands of children are born with birth defects caused by the accidentally given right-handed form of a medicin that should have contained a right-handed molecule, look at Bopal. Look at the exploded spacecrafts with people on board. How nice it looked when it broke up in the atmosphere. Look at thousands of failures in hospital which cause thousands of people to die. Look at Corona even! How many suffer from the harm done to Nature? What about the fact that people are destroying it and the possibility is there that this will make human life very difficult in the future (it does indeed look very dim, so scientists tell us).
And the list goes on and on. You might say that science offers a solution for the problems it created. In the form of technology, "social engineering", or whatever, but isn't it better to stop the whole enterprise altogether?
Quoting hanaH
Of course there are gods! It's not an "ultimate, questionable question" (again that science babble).. Again, the scientific stand. "An ultimate question"... Don't make me laugh. From a scientific viewpoint, which looks to creation only, the question makes no sense indeed. And scientists can't answer it. Not that I give a damned about them gods... The universe doesn't care about us, no, that's pretty obvious. Neither do the gods, for that matter.You call them gods childish wishfull thinking. What's wrong with that? I smell contempt. A big part of the poor parents of half the dead children you referred to earlier find consolation in religion. I kick at them gods too, but not in the mean way you do, declaring them non-existent. Or put them in the box of "unquestionable questions".
You mention various ways that technology fails us or creates new problems. I don't deny that. So how might we figure out if it's a net good? Well we can count things, like chance of a child surviving, like the number of years as person can be expected to live. As long as people are content to wallow in heated rhetoric and refuse to count, it's just theatrics.
If we want to get a little beyond sentimentality, we have to be definite. Our claims should also be relatively verifiable or falsifiable (I don't have a fixed philosophy of science, but that's a philosophy-of-language digression.) For me it's ultimately about technology, as opposed to metaphysical statements about what is real or foundational.
Anyway, stopping the whole thing seems impossible to me for 'game theory reasons,' and it doesn't seem desirable in the first place.
What do you mean by "loaded concept"? What do you mean by "crystallized intelligence"?
I believe you're right to notice that much academic and canonical philosophy is a bunch of overly burdened and overly technical mumbo jumbo of little use to any human being who doesn't intend to get paid for specializing in some such brand of hyperintellctualized discourse. I'm at least as doubtful about the value of much of the professional discourse that's sometimes called philosophy outside the ivory towers -- I mean, the discourse of shysters and magicians who profit by blowing people's minds with all sorts of misleading and unwarranted claims.
So I agree, there's lots of useless and even harmful talk that passes for philosophy in the world. But I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there's no such thing as useful philosophical discourse.
You might decide to stop studying the works of professional philosophers. But in my view, no one can stop engaging in philosophical activity. Once you realize this, you can either take up the process responsibly, or neglect to do so. But it will continue in you whether you recognize it or not, and whether you take responsibility for it or not. That's one of the more powerful incentives to spend at least a little time and effort practicing the art of philosophical discourse, so far as I can tell.
Many years ago, when I was a schoolboy, I asked a professor for an extension on a Hegel paper I was having trouble starting. By way of reply he remarked:
Among other things, I think he meant to suggest that I should just finish the damn paper and move on. But I've found it fitting to recall his proverb on many occasions.
Quoting DenverManDo you suppose there are many professors who have read every book and mastered every topic in philosophy? Even the most brilliant experts specialize and narrow down the scope of their research. Isn't it the same in science? Or in music? Or in carpentry? Or in every field of human practice nowadays?
I suppose the important thing is to find a niche that suits you -- that suits your preferences, your abilities, your obligations, and your goals.
Quoting DenverManWhy are you faced with this choice? Are you considering a career in philosophy, or just wondering if it's a waste of time, or what?
What is your interest in philosophy? What would you hope to accomplish or to gain by pursuing that interest?