Why are we here?
Not like in the big question sense of what is the purpose of human existence, but why are we, the readers of this forum, here, on this forum? Or more generally, what is it that constitutes your interest in philosophy, such that you seek out a forum on the topic?
I ask this because I'm not finding philosophy very fun anymore, and I'm wondering if I ever will, and if that might just be because other people generally aren't interested in it for the same reasons, toward the same ends, as I am.
I got interested in philosophy because I had broad academic interests in lots of topics and kept looking for more and more fundamental cores of those collections of interests, and that lead me eventually to physics on the one hand and something like economics or political science on the other hand, and then into basically metaphysics and ethics beneath each of those, so when I eventually found philosophy that seemed like it, the core field with connections to all the other fields.
The connections between the different parts of philosophy, the structures and symmetries within it, was in turn the most interesting part of philosophy to me, and getting a better and more detailed understanding of that big picture of philosophy as a whole, and its relation to other fields, was the most interesting part of studying philosophy in college.
After college I got most of my philosophical kicks either writing my book or (especially after I ran out of steam on that) bringing philosophical issues into play in other discussions that came up in random places on the internet. Last year when I finally got time to start writing my book properly again, I found myself wanting to talk to people more about philosophy itself directly, not just bringing up philosophical things in other topics, but nobody in those other places on the internet seemed interested in that.
So I found this place. And I guess it's better than other places where nobody wanted to talk philosophy at all. But I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
But I'm still curious. Why are you here?
I ask this because I'm not finding philosophy very fun anymore, and I'm wondering if I ever will, and if that might just be because other people generally aren't interested in it for the same reasons, toward the same ends, as I am.
I got interested in philosophy because I had broad academic interests in lots of topics and kept looking for more and more fundamental cores of those collections of interests, and that lead me eventually to physics on the one hand and something like economics or political science on the other hand, and then into basically metaphysics and ethics beneath each of those, so when I eventually found philosophy that seemed like it, the core field with connections to all the other fields.
The connections between the different parts of philosophy, the structures and symmetries within it, was in turn the most interesting part of philosophy to me, and getting a better and more detailed understanding of that big picture of philosophy as a whole, and its relation to other fields, was the most interesting part of studying philosophy in college.
After college I got most of my philosophical kicks either writing my book or (especially after I ran out of steam on that) bringing philosophical issues into play in other discussions that came up in random places on the internet. Last year when I finally got time to start writing my book properly again, I found myself wanting to talk to people more about philosophy itself directly, not just bringing up philosophical things in other topics, but nobody in those other places on the internet seemed interested in that.
So I found this place. And I guess it's better than other places where nobody wanted to talk philosophy at all. But I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
But I'm still curious. Why are you here?
Comments (141)
Habit. Enjoy talking about philosophy in a structured way. I learn a lot from other posters too. It's also quite nice to read what people write to get a reading of not just people's opinions on things but how people reason about things.
Fun is funny word here.
Philosophy strikes me as the fruit of intellectual dizziness, paralysis or crisis. A sense of urgency is key: an urgent or debilitating craving for intellectual illumination. There's nothing fun about a debilitating craving.
Through philosophical devotion, the dizziness, paralysis or crisis may be overcome. After that, philosophy is just good exercise for the brain.
That kind of passion and spirit of adventure used to drive everything in my life. It’s sad to think some people might only have come on this journey out of dire need, not just for fun.
Other people, generally everyone except me, is stupid. Anyone who objects to being called stupid, that is really a big part of how you become to be stupid. Generally everyone must be in their comfort zone, and really they just argue what feels good, disregarding logic.
Especially also the socalled science minded people. Everything they say, everything, is just about the feeling of certainty that is commonly associated to facts. Ooh they like this feeling of certainty very much.
But this feeling leads them astray, and it is total morbid fascination how utterly stupid they are. All they really do is emoting from this feeling of certainty, disregarding logic.
It is basically like drugs or alcohol. They have some argumentation where they can get a HIGH feeling of certainty to go with it. Their argument somehow releases the drugs which the brain produces itself. It's like a 40 percent alcohol liquor argument.
And then some other science minded person may come along, who has a different argument, that totally goes against the logic in their argument. But what happens then is not that they clash. Instead the other person also is just an addict who enjoys the feeling of certainty associated to statements of fact. So they just commend each other on their great arguments, while their arguments are totally opposite.
Your implication may be correct that this forum is not frequented primarily by academically-trained philosophers, but mostly by amateur & self-taught thinkers like me. Your interests, and I assume your training, are directed toward very abstruse & abstract topics. But many posters here use the forum to share gossip about politicians and viral pandemics, instead of pondering Liberty/Ethics/Justice, or the Viral Memes of Sophistry.
I hope you will continue to post here. I find your comments enlightening. But I admit that most of your linked stuff is way over my head. What's "fun" for me is the challenge of convincing people who know it all that I know more than they do. . . . Just kidding. :snicker:
To practice making arguments instead of just reading arguments.
If you have no burning question to illuminate, philosophy is bound to be a bore. Do you have a burning question?
If your question is no longer a burning one, it's the end: Philosophy is just a side-show now, just valuable brainpresses.
Do you have a second passion?
I think topics pertaining to ethics and liberty and justice do actually gain a lot of traction. The thing is - and this isn't targeted towards you - but philosophers aren't laying out entire systems anymore that aim to cover basically all topics. Philosophy - at least academic philosophy - is very concentrated. I think if you really want someone serious to go through your manifesto you're probably need to pay an expert philosopher for it. Even people with degrees in philosophy aren't going to take time out of their own day to read through pages of technical material and write up critiques.
I usually come here, or elsewhere, because I’ve articulated a thought and want to see if I can get any feedback. I understand that this, like many other similar sites, is s social site primarily not an academic environment.
I’m not particularly sure I have been, or ever will be, interested in philosophy in any special sense. I like to think, I like to write and I like to read.
Could the "all categories" page on PhilPapers count? Because that's basically my answer.
It sounds like you meant to address this to me, not Gnomon.
I do know that contemporary analytic philosophy shuns system-building, but while I do appreciate the concentrated and professional efforts they put into particular topics, I still think philosophy as a whole needs some people putting all those refined pieces together, and also some bridge between the professional world and the laity. I actually write about exactly that in my metaphilosophy.
As for my “manifesto”, I guess what I’ve been looking for is something like the response my most successful creative endeavor has seen. That was a free fan mod for an obscure old video game. Fans of that old game enjoyed having some new game content to play, and some of those fans enjoyed creating such content themselves, and both of those subgroups of that fandom checked out and gave feedback on my project, and eventually a lot of us ended up collaborating and creating something far greater than I could have all by myself in a vacuum.
I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain.
(...but I’m trying anyway).
Yeah, that's a game. I wouldn't think it's a problem to find game testers or people who'd want to try out some mod, but reading and providing feedback on relatively dense philosophical papers is just a different ballgame. You know as well as I that good philosophy requires serious concentration, and with your work I know that I'd have to go through other parts of your system if I wanted to either critique or gain a better understanding of one part. People enjoy playing games; good philosophy is serious work.
A collection of essays is a collection of essays. Try writing something about one particular topic in depth first. Very few people, if any, start bu writing a 500 page piece. They start small, perfect their craft, and more than likely end up writing something substantial that leaves their original ideas in the dust.
If no one cares what you write and you cannot find the experience you want take this on as the primary challenge of your life right now - think about the how and why you cannot find what you want here, or elsewhere, and deal with that first.
I’ve tried to set up groups online before where the aim was for people to write between 1000-2000 word mini-essay on a given topic and then exchange critique (including layout, presentation, style, and/or content). You won’t find anyone here willing to this, but you will find critique from others on writing forums (not here because people don’t care really, they just want to be ‘heard’ for the most part not ‘help’ - who can blame them, look at the majority of the content on this site).
I’m more than willing to start off something that can be of mutual benefit. Maybe start by writing something that is just 500-1000 words. The less you have to work with the more you can get out of it.
I used to think I could eventually write down my whole philosophy as you have done, but I’ve found through discussions here that reducing it to a single written approach often narrows its capacity to be understood broadly. I have to say, though - I admire your efforts, I recognise a lot of your philosophy in my own, and wish I could understand more of your explanations to discuss it with you in detail - my attempts at responding to your essays were deleted before posting because they sounded like a book review.
That said, I’ve found that no one here really wants to read the complex details of someone else’s philosophy unless it closely matches their own. I recognise that both you and Gnomon have relatively complete philosophical systems mapped out, which you continue to reference during discussions. I’ve started down that rabbit hole a few times, and while I was excited to read elements of my own philosophy reflected back to me, I eventually got lost in a sea of complex scientific concepts or neologisms. I wonder if either of you have considered condensing your system into something that fits onto a t-shirt? I realise that this seems a tall order, but I honestly don’t think a philosophical approach should be so complicated in the end that we can’t find a way to teach the basics to a six year old. That’s been my ultimate aim, personally.
I’m enjoying the discussions here, and although at times I feel a little out of my depth, I’ve been gradually learning more productive approaches to contributing, and there are enough generous and patient posters here to make it worth engaging in discussions - if only to discover what I still need to learn, or what others are simply unable to see from their perspective.
I'm here to enjoy reading delightful posts like this one. :cool:
I have nothing if not that. I've literally been working on this for over a decade already, and I don't consider it "done". This is just the latest step, after downgrading from the more interesting dialogue with narrative it was originally going to be, to just some essays in my natural voice: seeing how just that sketch of the ideas works so far.
And my other two big life projects, one of them that video game mod and the other a work of fiction, are both things that I've been slowly working on for the past 24 years, and are still in various stages of progress. I don't expect any of these things to be perfect yet, or necessarily ever. Just at least interesting, and worth continuing.
Quoting I like sushi
The interesting ideas I have to contribute are all about the relationships between different topics, and the overall structure of things. It is the large-scale arrangement of the pieces that is my interest and my value proposition. I don't have a whole lot to say in depth about any one particular topic that hasn't already been said, except for about the relationship between that topic and other topics.
I have this same issue with my work of fiction. The interesting thing that I am looking to create in that is a large, structured network of smaller stories. I haven't completely fleshed out any of the smaller stories yet, because that's not the novel idea behind the work; that's the legwork that needs to be carried out to implement the novel idea properly. I know I have to do that eventually, but it's extremely frustrating when people say "just pick one of these stories and write that" when the way the stories all connect to each other is the interesting thing.
It's like if I made cardboard mock-up of a big planned community and everyone who took a look at it only remarked on how simple and shoddily constructed the first house they saw looked like. Yeah, the real houses will be sturdier and more fleshed out in the end, if I ever get to properly build this thing, but it's the way they're all arranged together, the street layouts and so on, that I'm pitching here. Stop focusing on the little fake houses, I know they're shit, that's not the point, that's why I didn't just hold up one little fake house and say "look at what I made".
Or if I made a sketch of an image I was thinking of painting, with like, a deer on a hill, and a duck on a pond, and a hawk in the sky, and everyone said "pick one animal and fully paint that". I'm trying to get feedback on the general layout of the painting before I go spend tons of time fleshing out any one part of it.
Quoting Possibility
"It may be hopeless, but I'm trying anyway." (My pragmatic maxim).
"No unanswerable questions, no unquestionable answers." (My core philosophical principles).
"From the meaning of words to the meaning of life". (My take on what philosophy is about).
I love catchy little slogans like that, but they basically communicate nothing useful out of context.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Man is something that shall be overcome.
Nietzsche
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
Saint John
:clap:
:up:
:death: :flower:
These are great! I love the first two, I’d argue on the third, but I do get where you’re coming from.
I guess I’m referring to an essence and a basic structure. As an example, you may have picked up that the core of my own philosophy has been “to increase awareness, connection and collaboration (with courage)”. I think it’s applied most accurately within a relational structure of existence that has six dimensional aspects (which obviously takes some explanation), but it’s a starting point, at least.
I’ve always done things the hard way. Jumping in the deep end has benefits, the thing I‘ve learnt more and more, in terms of completing a project, is that jumping in the deep-end does nothing in terms of productive work (but it certainly expands personal experience and learning). They are NOT the same thing though.
I challenge you to write what your book is about in 200 words only. Try several ways of doing this, including writing with the assumption that your audience knows how you think and has your knowledge, writing with the assumption they know nothing about philosophy and don’t really care to, or write it like it’s a narrative laced with analogies and symbolism.
If you are as persistent as you say keep failing and enjoy failing.
Understand, like everyone here I am talking mostly to myself. No one cares what I write, because in reality they only care about how they can make use of what they read.
If you’re really looking for what you say you’re looking for I’m here. We can do it privately or publicly, doesn’t matter either way to me. I want what you say you want. We can pick something to write about and feed of each other (tell each other what stands out for good/bad reasons, etc.,.)
:up: A worthy challenge, @Pfhorrest!
[b][i]“Ever tried.
Ever failed.
No matter.
Try again.
Fail again.
Fail better.”[/i][/b]
~S.B.
Before I even knew what philosophy was, I was looking for something. Something fundamental. I didn’t know what to call it.
When I discovered philosophy, I thought that that field was the place where I would find what I was looking for, and that that was the name of what I was looking for: a philosophy. The right one.
I didn’t find it. But I found lots of partial attempts at it, and partially successful attempts at it, and generally, altogether, most of the parts of it. They just needed to be shaped and polished a bit, assembled together in the right way, and a few gaps filled in.
That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it.
That's interesting. Could you say what sort of interaction would indicate that people were interested in 'big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole' stuff? I mean, there's hundreds of posts here on all sorts of different topics ranging from the origins of the universe to some specific quote in a particular academic text. I'm finding it very hard to understand what you could mean by interest in 'big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole' stuff that wouldn't fall somewhere in that spectrum.
Sorry if I'm being a bit slow, still not sure if you're talking about about meta-philosophy, or an attempt to tackle the entirety of philosophical investigation in one go.
Have you tried writing a post on the topic yourself? (I tend to follow a very narrow range of threads so I may well have missed it).
Does the value of philosophy lie only in the happiness we derive from it or does philosophy have a value that isn't just about how much happiness we derive from it?
The answer matters because if Hedonism is true then philosophy is just another path to happiness, neither better nor worse than any other activity that affords h?don?. Only if Hedonism is false can we hope to provide an answer different to "I'm here because it gives me pleasure" and, if my suspicions are anywhere near the mark, you seek an answer different.
Something is taking its course.
Clov
I tend to think of philosophy as pre-science.
I notice that you don’t have a chapter in your book dedicated to metaphysics, incidentally.
My question is what is it that you find pleasurable here, whether that be intrinsic or instrumental.
Yes well that is tragic. People need to fix themselves. But following flawed philosophies and believing lies is not going to help.
The chapter on ontology is most of what I would write about metaphysics, though other chapters also touch on metaphysical things. I also don’t properly have just one chapter on ethics, but rather several chapters on ethical subtopics.
This query, although well formulated and dives right into the crux of the issue, can't be answered in a satisfactory manner.
Why?
Imagine I answer your question by confessing that I derive pleasure from philosophy's emphasis on logic. Now, that might seem like a perfectly reasonable answer but notice that the questioning can continue: what is pleasurable about logic? I might then reply by saying that logic is pleasurable to me because it keeps me in touch with reality. This might seem like the end of the interrogation but unfortunately, no, it isn't and the next question is: what about being in touch with reality is pleasurable? As might be obvious to you now, there's no last item in this endless series of hedonistic questions and one might as well decide to block this infinite hedonistic regress by answering the first (your) question with "I just feel happy when I do philosophy and that's that. Ok!"
Perhaps what you are working on is a comprehensive philosophical WorldView. I created a website to present my thesis of the "big picture", which I called Enformationism, as a counterpoint to the two most common modern worldviews : A> Spiritualism and B> Materialism. Like you, I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out.
Ironically, it's both A & B. Regardless of its lack of popular appeal though, the thesis has served its primary purpose : to organize a clear picture in my own mind of how & why the world works as it does, and its relationship to me. This is a replacement for the basically Spiritualist perspective of my religious training, and the Materialist cosmology of my scientific learning. Anyway, I'm still motivated to develop that thesis by interfacing with others focused more on the tiny bits & pieces of philosophy : such as "whether chairs exist". :nerd:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8190/collaborative-criticism
I'm here to learn about other ideas and expose my ideas criticism. I don't state my ideas just to look at myself write. I expect someone to read it and come up with questions that I haven't asked myself, and then attempt to answer them or change my ideas. Criticizing your own ideas is difficult, especially when you have an emotional attachment to them. We all need help in hammering out our ideas with constructive criticism. Yes, interactions on this forum and the previous one is the reason some of my ideas have evolved. It seems like too many people are on this forum to do the exact opposite, which isn't philosophy. It's more akin to political propaganda and religious proselytizing.
There are certain specific themes and directions of thought that I find most interesting. I like to compare my perspectives with those of others. I'm not so interested in debating issues. My approach tends to be quite holistic and inter-disciplinary, so I may suggest consideration of a new salient dimension to a problem.
I especially like the forum as a way to discover areas and philosophers I may have overlooked; and to motivate me to undertake challenges. Reading Karl Popper has been an awakening for me. I read The Critique of Dialectical Reason as a result of tiddling online dispute. I'm taking on Das Kapital because of a thread proposing a close-reading group of the text. Stuff like that.
Edit. I guess on reflection, the sense of belonging to a community of like-minded individuals. Even people with diametrically opposed viewpoints to mine presumably share my passion, in some way. That in itself is an interesting philosophical paradox I think.
The funny thing is, having googled ‘Enformationism’ and briefly skimming the results, that this appears to be your basic modus operandi. It makes me wonder why someone would construct a WorldView with only a cursory glance at well established views. The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics.
Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.
What philosophical views are "well established"?
Ha! You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out." :cool:
Ha, ha! If I spend so much time on the Enformationism project in order to make money (material gain), I'm a profound failure, and an abject fool. Please don't quote me on that. :joke:
Ha, ha, ha! The Enformationism welcome page specifically indicates that it is not intended to be a typical academic paper on some well-documented philosophical doctrine : "I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously." :nerd:
You're essentially saying that you don't have more authority than scientists or philosophers. You're not saying that you have less. Nothing wrong with that of course, besides the false modesty.
Quoting Gnomon
I went to a subject that I'm currently interested in when I visited one of your websites. It did not express a desire to really understand the subject. I'll characterize it as a half-ass effort to dismiss a competing idea to your "weird idea," whatever that is. I have no idea of what your weird idea is.
I'm not familiar with John Collier (sci-fi writer??). Where can I find his erroneous spelling of Information with an "E". Google doesn't show any connection between Collier and "Enformation". Was there any particular significance to the misspelling?
I chose that spelling in part because the term "Informationism" was already out there as a reference to ideological propaganda. And partly because of the connection between Information and Energy, as in my neologism, EnFormAction. :smile:
Enformation : Obsolete form of "information".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enformation
EnFormAction : "the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
PS__Apparently, praxis has a philosophical view that is "well-established", and Enformationism ain't it. :wink:
You could say that Enformationism is a 21st century version of ancient Platonism (metaphysics) combined with Aristotelianism (physics).
Enformationism :
[i]As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
I'm interpreting the thrust of your question to be something like 'what philosophies are generally accepted?' Generally speaking, established views are generally accepted.
Not trying hard enough. Maybe you’re just not ready yet and find it easier to swallow if it’s ‘the world’ that’s against you instead of yourself.
We’re all human though. I do the same often enough and still hoodwink myself for days/weeks/months at a time. Slowly less and less, it is what it is, we are what we are, but we can instill ourselves a break our own destructive patterns if we manage to stop being consumed by hidden fears for a few brief instances (and they’re always brief or insanity ensues).
GL and keep trying to try, to try trying, to try :D
Our sense units are advanced and can produce lot's of data that may attribute to a lot of good science, from any species, who can collect this data.
2. To act.
Unlike seagulls, humans are more apt to play a central role. In movies, per se, a seagull is less of a Jame's Bond.
3. For science.
The universe is rought with potential, to improve all simulations, to improve planets, etc
it seems to be an event that was more about the genesis than the end product.
The "geniser', did understand the result, but not all it's effect.
4. For art.
Producing art of a high quality can be profitable to any species with the capacity to wonder at it.
If, in life, there are species, who can exploit all universe data (possibly from a multiverse), art is desirable. Imagine the echoes of all the best music.
5. To be punished.
Planet hells are high quality struggles. It is only recently I discovered that there is enough consciousness in existence to support conscio-reincarnation in the universe.
6. To be rewarded.
Planet heavens are often high quality and full of pleasure.
John D. Collier's website
Dr. Collier mentions "enformation" in the first link I provided to you in the other thread:
I would like to add John D. Collier's Information, Causation, and Computation and Causation is the Transfer of Information
Quoting praxis
It's amazing that you seem satisfied with this circular non-answer to my question.
Specifically, which philosophical views are well established? If you can't answer it, then retract your faulty statement, or are you emotionally attached to your statements that you make on this forum?
As fun and interesting as this is, why don’t you just reread what I actually wrote.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don’t think anyone else would make my statements, but to answer the question, yes. Are you not human?
I'm aware that philosophy is not an emotion-driven game, but hard rational work. Hence it will never be as popular as shoot-em-up video games. But, in writing the Enformationism thesis, I was driven by the philosopher's emotion : Love of Wisdom. It was an attempt to put my random thoughts into an organized form, so I could objectively see what I was subjectively thinking. That probing process continues in my blog, and in this forum. It was never about popularity, or ego-boosting, or fantasy fun. But, for a target audience of one, it has been very successful.
I have played with the notion of summarizing the thesis of Enformationism in a T-shirt logo. But I'm not there yet. Here's a crude first pass at a concise equation of "Information" :
E = MC^?.
Where "E" is EnFormAction ; "M" is the Macrocosm ; and "C" is Constant Creativity ; and the exponent is Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity).
Unfortunately, few six year olds would find that informative, or fun. So, back to the old drawing board. :nerd:
EnFormAction :
[i]En- __ is the power (Energy) to cause something to change state.
-Form- __ is the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
-Action __ the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.
Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.[/i]
PS__another T-shirt epigram : "Mother Nature Begets Herself".
I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine : Escaping The Academic Coal Mine. The author says, "I am currently crafting an article that tinkers with aspects of John Rawls" political theory that are so esoteric that they're probably of no interest to anyone not trapped inside the same isolated bubble. So why do it?" He also notes that "82% of academic articles in the humanities are not cited. Not once." Then he wonders, "If research is not being read beyond a nerdy few, is it worth doing, at least in a professional context? Shouldn't it rather be a hobby?"
I'm long retired, and don't depend on my philosophical scrivenings for income or professional advancement. So for me, my tinkering with cosmological ideas is just a hobby, like collecting stamps. Wanna see my cosmic worldview stamp collection? :nerd:
What's uncanny about Enformationism is that it reconciles Idealism with Realism and Spiritualism with Materialism. It's based on the cutting-edge scientific concept that immaterial Information --- not atoms, not water, not fire --- is the fundamental "stuff" of the world. Everything, from Matter to Mind, is a form of Information, including the Energy & Selection Algorithms that propel evolution. You could think of Enformationism as a 21st century atomic hypothesis, in which the "particles" are not things, but ideas or relationships. :nerd:
Is Information Fundamental ? : Does information work at the deep levels of physics, including quantum theory, undergirding the fundamental forces and particles? But what is the essence of information—describing how the world works or being how the world works. There is a huge difference. Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental
What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? We have to call them something. For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information?
Yes. His general worldview is similar to mine, except for the special integrating role for information. But I found his book, Process and Reality, difficult to follow because of his frequent neologisms and special definitions for ordinary words. That's why I have an extensive Glossary of relevant terminology, and continue to clarify controversial issues in my blog. It's a "fun" hobby for an introvert. :smile:
The problem here is that you're not reading what I wrote.
Quoting praxis
Sure, but being human also entails using reason, and it's seems to me that you're all emotion and no reason, because your reply was unreasonable, hence my request to clarify, and your refusal to do so.
It depends if it's a name or a property. If A and B are two names for one thing, it makes no difference. If A and B are two properties (or sets of properties) of the same thing, it makes a difference.
Yes, take a computer for example, we could say that one property is hardware and another is software.
There’s another way that makes a difference that involves purpose. For example, a hammer can be both a hammer and a paperweight.
And you believe this is a reasonable claim?
Absolutely. The reason being your inability to answer a direct question.
I asked you what philosophical view is well established. I'll go easy on you and ask for only one example. Give me the name of the philosophical view and the name of the original proponent so we can continue. And then I would like to know if that philosophical view took into account all the prior "well established" views when it was originally proposed. For instance, did Aristotle or Wittgenstein take into account any prior "well established" views when they proposed their own? What about Darwin or Newton? Would Aristotle and Wittgenstein make the same claims if they had access to all the well established scientific views that we have now?
Now, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a well established view, but that is a scientific view, not a philosophical one. How can any view be well established if it isn't falsifiable?
You're partly to blame for making off-topic assertions.
And then you proceed as though I have the capacity for reason. You, Sir, are a lier.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result.
As I mentioned earlier in the topic, I read a portion of Gnomon's website that caught my interest. It was about meditation and related subjects. Granted it may touch on philosophical issues, however, the bulk of it is well within the falsifiable realm.
Oh, no. I expected the same result. My post wasnt for you, but for reasonable readers to see how unreasonable you are being.
So I’ve been promoted from reasonless to unreasonable. Cool :cool:
It seems to me that he is saying that both “matter” and “spirit” are reducible to “information”. Your B is a subset of A, not coextensive with it. C (spirit) is also a subset of A. If I understand him correctly.
I like that general approach at least. As I see it matter reduces to information which is in one fuzzy kind of way “mind-like”, “mental” stuff, “ideas” in a sense; but actual minds in the ordinary sense are made of that matter, which is not necessarily “in” any particular mind. It’s all a wonky way of talking about reality being made of stuff that is mind-accessible, and actual minds being made of that stuff then being able to access is unremarkable.
If everything is information then all programs are data and all data can be executed as a program (even if it won’t do anything but halt immediately) and there’s no mysterious duality to work around.
I am here for a bit of intellectual stimulation where there is a high standard of thought. To achieve this in the area where I live would not be easy and would mean seeking out the right kind of people and travel and therefore logistics and time, would be required.
Rather like you say, my particular area of interest does not fall into a philosophical category, as academic philosophy describes them. I refer to mysticism, whenever I bring up the subject I either get a blank, I am put into some sort of weirdo category, or if someone does engage they tend to give up, or lose interest, once I say something like, you have to look beyond your intellect. It just doesn't seem to compute. There are one or two folk on here who do understand to a degree what I am thinking, but even then it is virtually impossible to engage. This is probably why I find myself in the politics section at the moment, because it is possible to engage.
Apparently, foolosophers like us need a place - an agora - to conceptually chase (spin) our promiscuously speculative tails (tales).
My interest: I wonder can - wander until - these dialectics show us the way out of the fly-bottle.
Or else wane literal. :zip:
'Why am I here?' - life, briefly - and the leading answer on this board 'information'/'enformation'. It seems wrong to answer why with that, that, is more suited for a full assesment, such as assesment of all matter and energy phenomena, not - everything - briefly.
I stand by my former post in this thread.
It seems more a question about mental agility than it is pure mental; not 'what the mind is' but 'why mind exists?' - is it enformation or is that more suited for what?
'Why' questions require more creative and less logical answers; you're not to answer this query like you'd define a word or sum up a formula...
You're going to have a whack at it.
Enformation counts to me as 'continue' - 'you're doing nothing wrong'. Whereas {sensing, acting, science, art, heaven and hell}(my previous post) seems more of an sensible answer impartial as this may be.
Imagine an empty thought bubble, but if you're spermy you may enter it and truly analyse all of it. Like having a dream that you knew was coming - then it is full of what's that help minds to understand the former why. That transition from why to what is changing using the original bubble, not annotating it. So you go in, you annotate all the what - and then you take a look at the bubble again. You say "why are we here?", and you look at all the "1's you wrote next to all objects and subjects, and you say 1 is the answer. Is that right?
No because it's more of a 3 or 4, in a trinitarian or quadritarian way and not a 3 or 4 * 1 way. So, to conclude, why are we here?
I think that‘s not necessarily a bad thing, if you’re up front about that fact, and put together something new and worthwhile out of the old parts. If you can take a bunch of pieces of old things, tweak and modify them, and put them together in an interesting new way, maybe glued together with a few novel parts of your own, that is still a worthwhile creative act.
And honestly, maybe better in a lot of ways than completely reinventing the wheel... and all the other parts too.
Sure, but to me it doesn’t look like there’s much, if any, concern for... I’ll just say discovery. He uses persuasive tactics to sell “his” ideas. Tactics which are dishonest. That’s what salesman do, not discoverers.
Quite, I saw a steam engine made out of an old door knob the other day, on the antiques roadshow. The maker had spent hundreds of hours engineering all the miniature parts required. It ran on a spoonful of water and a thimble full of meths. It was treated with reverence and was quite valuable.
Welcome back and I hope you're ok.
And thanks, I'm feeling pretty good today. :-)
Though whimsically dramatic, at least my Frankenstein analogy offers the dignity of power and not the indignity of being reduced to a cherished toy.
When I suddenly figured it out, it took me about 3 weeks to write 45,000 words on it, and three years virutally comatose to recover from that. Now I'm fixing it, and I came back here to share bits of it.
This time, I dont feel like such a fool any more. I see people suffering or in trouble. Often I identify with it and can say something to help. And there are still solipsists, nihilists, and evangelicals alienating themselves from other people. Mostly they think other people alienate them, but its really the other way around in my opinion.
"Heaven starts right now. Maybe it continues in the afterlife, or maybe not. We'll only know for sure after we pass away. Meanwhile, heaven starts right now. Heaven always starts right now.'
I just like smart people I guess.
Don’t go think’n that with all your fancy words and learn’n that ya ain’t one of them filostines.
‘Concrescence’, ‘epochal process’, and ‘prehension’ were all terms coined by Whitehead which, to my knowledge, were not previously used in the sense that he employed them. Concrescence is a biological term referring to teeth, prehension is another biological term referring to the grasping capacity of the thumb and forefinger, and epochal refers to distinguishably large periods of history. Like Gnomon’s writing, I agree with many of the ideas behind Whitehead’s process philosophy. I think it’s a shame the neologisms have prevented a wider reading of his work.
Good, for you. I plan to join a suicide hotline sometime soon, sorry, as an operator.
*As an operator* not, a *patient*.
I find extreme comfort in helping other people. I can't put any other way.
They make sense to me, too. But I’m thinking we’re already on the other side of the paradigm shift in many ways. To many readers, Whitehead’s philosophy feels like they have to learn a new language before they can follow his thinking, because the language he uses reflects his shifted perspective, rather than explaining how he got there. It loses touch with the old paradigm, which I’ve found is surprisingly easy to do.
Imagine being at the edge of a dark expanse, and someone’s calling to you from the darkness. They’re telling you all the reasons why you’re on the wrong side, but you can’t see where they are or how they got across. Do you follow the voice into the darkness, or ask for more information? If you can’t understand what their instructions mean from where you are, does it matter whether or not you agree that you’re on the wrong side? Do you move forward, stay where you are, or ignore them and try to find your own way across?
I haven’t read anything about his theory, being the filthy philistine that I am. It’s curious that he claims to have resolved the rift between idealism and materialism and yet says himself “I favor Idealism.”
I is something to you and and you are nothing consciousness-wise.
What is we?
Perhaps worth study.
So you've approached philosophy with the same intellectual rigor that you'd use to approach any other academic discipline, and have sought to find in philosophy a "big picture" which integrates it with other disciplines, if I understand you correctly. Perhaps that's commendable, and it's certainly how philosophy's been approached since way back when.
But you also said you're not finding philosophy much fun any more, and actually I'm not surprised. Your approach seems to treat it just as another academic discipline (correct me if I err). Academia can easily rob us of spontaneity, freshness, and fun. Consider a scientist whose whole world exists under a microscope. When he finally makes it out of his lab each day, he fails to notice the simple beauty of nature around him - the warm sunshine, the flowers - because he's so caught up in his intellectual deliberations.
Most people never see the sun, not really. They see a radiant disc in the sky and label it, dismissively, as "the sun". They don't really see it. Not with the freshness and wonder of a young child, anyway.
" ... what is it that constitutes your interest in philosophy, such that you seek out a forum on the topic?"
My interest in philosophy is directly connected with awe and wonder. Awe and wonder at the miracle of my own being, the miracle of consciousness. It's rapt meditation around that most fundamental of questions: "Who am I?", without any attendant need to intellectualise that question. It's the realisation that intellectual pursuits ultimately get me nowhere, when it comes to that deeper journey into the nature of Self.
It's the realisation that "of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh." (Ecclesiastes 12:12). It's the realisation, when I move beyond intellectual positioning, of "the peace that passes understanding" (Philippians 4:7). (I hold no particular religious convictions, but find much wisdom in scripture.) It's the contemplation of that still, quiet centre which is the essence of my being.
It's not academia that has made it un-fun. I had a great time studying philosophy at university. It's the inability to find a continuation of that same atmosphere that I enjoyed there somewhere outside of there that has made it un-fun.
I want to elaborate more on why, but I fear that it will not be a fun experience to do so here.
"Concrescence" for Whitehead, if i am not mistaken, refers to the result of becoming concrete.
:up: :joke:
I did now, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8303/the-structure-of-philosophy
Hi! I believe we know we are here when we realize we all are an individualization of the infinite, so each one has to select who he or she actually is in his or her own point of view. And there is a lot to talk about that. Then, we must be free of the cultural clichés, whose long mental influence inhibits the person inactivating his or her biophilic mental vibrations in the creation of an ageless, completely healthy, nonmortal, invulnerable body. Therefore all the cells & organic fluids are 100% renovated in a short period of the so called earth's days. Also a positive abundance of conditions & items start surrounding the person and his or her closed ones. The healing power gradually changes for the good of the neighboring environment of all expressions of life, producing a better world around. Do you agree with this experience?
You only just figured that out? :lol:
My thoughts cry out for their stamps in existence.
I see the poor existence of the ego, the torment it has suffered and constantly suffers for all those who claim to see the colors of the world, but in reality only feel the cold and dead gray.
Before publishing a book, I came - as a form of research - to see the reaction of some in question to some topics in my first work.
The reactions were as expected ...
Thinking about very hard fundamental problems (like math problems) is a good way to learn to think logically. But for philosophy, some kind of mystical or intuitive insight is good as well as the logical stuff. Logic alone won't do it.
In a nutshell: to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.
@StreetlightX I think you've helped with things like this before?
Can you do that? I was reluctant to enter into an in-depth discussion here, but felt I needed to respond to repeated accusation of being ‘evasive’. I apologise for hijacking your thread.
Perhaps your recent disenchantment with philosophy is that you're focused on its premises without equal concern for its practical applications. Underlying practical philosophy is the idea that there is a right way to live, and that our flourishing as human beings is possible with right thinking.
Nah, I’m plenty concerned with its practical applications. My interests started with practical things and then got more and more abstract as arguments about those practical things hinged on more abstract premises, and then more abstract premises to the arguments about those premises, etc. And in the end, the principles I ended up adopting at the very bottom of all that were practical ones, concerned with what the point of doing philosophy even is and how to most effectively go about that.
But maybe a point of disillusionment is that few people seem interested in following that long chain from the abstract to the practical, instead getting caught up in arguments about meaningless abstractions that don’t go anywhere practical even if someone “wins”, or else intractable arguments about more practical things that can’t be resolved without diving deeper into the more abstract things underlying them.
Some gold nuggets that interests me in philosophy:
1. The poem "Good Timber" by Douglas Malloch which makes me grateful for adversity!
Thoughts from the ancient philosopher Seneca:
2. "Of all people, only those who are at leisure, who make time for philosophy, only those are really alive. For they not only keep a good watch over their own lifetimes, but they annex every age to theirs."
3. "It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult."
4. "We suffer more often in imagination than in reality."
Hopefully this excites you about philosophy to some degree. Happy treasure hunt!
by being good here we achieve a new level?Personally, I disagree
And then I figured f*** it, started studying philosophy, religion and ethics at the open University, and making my existentialism my hobby.
Now even my bad days are just 'a personal thought experiment'
I hate that doing philosophy has made me think.
I love that doing philosophy had made me think.
I can't imagine life now without doing philosophy.
I may be wrong about a lot things, but I always try to think about why I think things and what it means to think that way. In this way I feel like a 'good' person.
I posted this;
Life is a vast sandbox rgp with an infinite 'world map'
Your whole life is spent gaining experience points, completing challenges and trying to get as close to 100% completion, realising 100% is impossible because of certainly in-game one off choices and therefore must decide what the closet to 100% completion is to you this time you play. There are Easter eggs, bonus levels that both affect the outcome of the game and those that don't, and ultimately at the end of the game you die, and all this points are lost.
Maybe you respawn in a way that some level of attainment is important, maybe its a one time around map, but either it doesn't matter, cos the new game isn't based on any of your 'save points', a new character would play the same game a new way from an infinite amount of start points, story arcs etc...
This means life it pointless, yet this pointlessness is the point, the aim of the game is only to play the game, you decide right and wrong, sometimes a group can agree on these ideas and thus create groups and scoieites and civilisations, but it all boils down to each person in that group choosing that similar path for their game.
I am not referencing some kind of destiny here, just the acceptance that sometimes one can create a isolated 'fate' where one keystone choice will inevitably lead to an outcome unless certain other choices are made.
(I am also not talking literally, as in I am not referring to this dea that we live in a (or somebody's?) simulation, that is a different idea, my sandbox rpg is metaphorical.)
thoughts?