Philosophy is a reactive-process
Philosophy is a reactive-process (sub-atomic propulsion mechanism) that enhances or amplifies data filtering, preparing us for science or psychological enrichment.
Earth's sky on a clear day is an atmospheric blue color, is data; if philosophy, this data is subject to amplification(I e. Future tense of present(becoming); Earth's sky on a clear day is an atmospheric blue color, that is a result of the solar and biological spheres) or enhancement(I.e. Past tense of present(became): Earth's sky on a clear day is an atmospheric blue color, that is more a mixture of bio green and heat red).
Some people use philosophy to format data prior to science.
Some people use philosophy for entertainment, enlightenment, education or other psychological enrichments.
Amplifying or enhancing data prescribes fuller definitions to objects and subjects, of which the philosopher continues to build or resigns.
Earth's sky on a clear day is an atmospheric blue color, is data; if philosophy, this data is subject to amplification(I e. Future tense of present(becoming); Earth's sky on a clear day is an atmospheric blue color, that is a result of the solar and biological spheres) or enhancement(I.e. Past tense of present(became): Earth's sky on a clear day is an atmospheric blue color, that is more a mixture of bio green and heat red).
Some people use philosophy to format data prior to science.
Some people use philosophy for entertainment, enlightenment, education or other psychological enrichments.
Amplifying or enhancing data prescribes fuller definitions to objects and subjects, of which the philosopher continues to build or resigns.
Comments (15)
Quoting Varde
Godssake! How did you get all that?
Suffice to say that Philosophy itself --it's nature-- is not a process. A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. On the other hand, philosophy is basically a system of thought. Thinking is a process, but in this case we would have "philosophy in action" or "philosophizing" etc., which indicate action, activity and/or process.
But even if we skip the above semantics, there's a striking word: "reactive", which signifies a response to a stimulus. That is, totally mechanic. Philosophy is very far from that. It uses creative, basic logic/reasoning. It uses imagination. It uses intuition. All these are non-mechanic in nature.
I don't know why people start threads bashing philosophy.
Philosophy isn't just imagination randomly, though it, and all that you mentioned, are included in the motor.
You never do philosophy lest you're reacting to phenom.
Try God, now try ...(nothing to think about). So it's not very far from philosophy at all.
I didn't really understand what you meant, sounded very inward and inane.
I'm the philosopher- not philosophy- what do you mean 'it uses...'; as far as I know philosophy ain't a being.
I wonder too ... Although in this case I think that it is I who bashed more @Verde for his description of philosophy than he philosophy :grin:
Imagination, as a process, can be but it is normally not random. It is mainly a directed action of forming new ideas/concepts, images, etc. It is the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful.
I don't want to go on. Almost everything you say is totally wrong. Per definition, not according to my view.
My advice to you is to start using dictionaries: Look up the definitions --all of them-- of every concept you are using. It's the only way to put some order in the confusion, which you are not even aware you are in.
I admit, I'm harsh with you, but man, you miss really a lot, and you need to work a lot and hard, if you want to get involved in philosophy in a way that makes sense.
Philosophy is filled with the sort of stuff you don't instantly understand, yes, you're being too harsh... I like the whip though, you may continue...
Imagination, intuition, reasoning/basic logic, are not used separate from each other, they all make up the philosophy process.
What you consider is writing philosophy, whereas I'm talking about thinking philosophically, which aren't the same.
What you suggest is that philosophy isn't broadband, that it is composed of separate parts and does not make sense, stand-alone. I, on the other hand, sense philosophy as a stand-alone, reactive-process.
EDIT: it might be a subliminal reactive-process.
Ultra-retrograde: where a subject is thought about from multiple different depths using the active-brain.
Sub-ordinate: where a subject is filtered through self-psychoanalysis (psychology is a rank higher than philosophy.
I use philosophical thought based on not understanding, understanding data partially or misunderstanding- otherwise it becomes a psychology discussion.
Data becoming knowledge is a mental switch from philosophy to psychology.).
Reactive-process: [I]read up[/I].
Good point. Making up words and concepts does not allow for philosophy.
Other than that no word was made up in this thread, please explain yourself rather than well... your stomach grumbling in support of half eaten food.
If you're fine, I am fine.
I am always fine my friend. This is not wrath, this is discourse masculinity, debating.
Don't make any unnecessary sacrifices, be yourself. Literally, just relax and that stuff that YOU do. Let nature take it's course.
Perhaps it is insane in your eyes but I'm sure when I do philosophy, it is extremely my mind, moving backwards to orientate a subject matter around psychology. Thus, to me anyway, philosophy is that building using quddity process.
I will just leave then, I suppose, given it's a high risk for me to remain sane.
I agree. Unfortunately, this is quite common. Again, I wonder why ...
Some think philosophy is just stating opinions. They would not think that of physics, but think there is nothing to learn about philosophy.
This should have been in the introduction post.
You can ease your readers into these new terminologies by prefacing with a statement and definitions. Despite the seemingly undisciplined format that philosophical discussions use, there are always the existing pioneering thoughts/ideas that we use as foundation or starting ideas. Philosophy is a language, after all, that's shared by a community of philosophers and interpreters.
I think this is fair to say.
This is true. Even for myself, in a way. I rarily think that I have still to learn about philosophy itself. At some point I realized that I can have my own, independent ideas, which of course have been built from reading a lot of philosophical texts and about quite a lot of philosophers. I feel that I am in a position to judge whatever philosophical idea, statement, quotattion, etc., on the condition that it is clear and well defined, of course. Parallelly, however, I can always get inspired by philosophical ideas.
I'm not sure though if this is good or bad, I mean not having to learn more about philosophy, which is a very interesting point that you brought in! :up: