About the things which make no sense – they may not make sense to us but is it possbile that they still make sense? Do we first examine and reflect on them to be sure they make no sense?
About the gut reactions which do make sense - is it possible that they actually do not make sense. We have biases.
Agreed - also to try to understand another’s thinking - unless we feel we’re all knowing and close our minds to their thinking.
I get that - if you’re sure of that.
Subjective truth is not necessarily untruth. For the most part, isn’t that all we havew - though some ST is more valid than other ST.
.
Just to be sure, are we speaking of Satyr now or still S?
I think I’m understanding what you’re saying here. After first mulling it over in my brain, I wasn’t so sure I agreed with you but insofar as let’s say our behavior, sure, there could be a conflict of interests, of ideals.
Maybe a better word for you to have used is “real” or “valid” not so much wise. But i may be wrong.
Hmmm…I do understand what you’re saying here because I’ve been there myself. I know that this is veering away from what you’re saying but why must they necessarily disrespect each other’s perspective? Okay, maybe I’m putting too much of a negative slant on “disrespect” here.
But wouldn’t that depend on how their thinking influences their actions/behavior?
Might that be because their minds are not open to each other? Maybe it only reaches the point you’re speaking of when they cannot respect one another, despite their contrary thinking. Am I wrong here?
That’s the part I’m not sure of. That word “disrespect”. We can vehemently disagree with someone’s thinking but does that mean that we disrespect them? It is only when that thinking leads to behavior which we disagree with where the disrespect comes into focus for me.
I’ll have to give that more thought though.
Maybe you need to define what you mean by “disrespect”.
Of course. I am not saying philosophy is not what you said, I am saying it is not limited to what you said. Your generalization was on using philosophy to open the mind. But often out minds are too open, naive, so philosophy may help us close out minds to certain things. I am not suggesting that all gut reactions are correct, but sometimes philosophy has helped justify a gut reaction I had THAT i OVERRODE in the name of having an open mind.
If you say philosophy is X.
And I say philosophy is not ONLY X.
It does not mean I am saying philosophy is NOT X.
And in context this all seems very tangential. I was not suggesting someone disregard Satyr or whomever they have a paradigmatic disagreement with. Not at all. What I was saying was that one will have very different wisdoms, what one considers wise, if one does not share a paradigm with someone else.
It sounds like diplomatic fluff to say ‘I consider you wise for these beliefs I consider absurd’’ And they must seem absurd if you do not share the same paradigm.
At a certain point and in certain circumsatances we all close out minds. The only question is how and when. In fact part of philosophy is learning to know when an argument does not make sense. Now if you respond that being open to learning is good, you are missing my point, see above. To me you are making a nice sounding poor generalization about what philosophy is for. It is not, for example, why many of the philosophers we read wrote what they wrote. They wrote to explain what they considered true, period. This does not mean they weren’t open to revision and critique, but they were not writing their books to open their minds, they were justifying their positions and inventing them.
And, again, none of this has anything to do with the point I was making about wisdom.
I am not quite sure what you mean. I think Satyr should be allowed to post here. WEll, actually he does post here these days.
.
In the example, Satyr, but since I am generalizing about dealing with people with different paradigms, whoever that person is, the one who has a different paradigm. I am pointing out that saying someone is smart does not entail the problem I was bringing up. To say they are wise AND have a different paradigm must be to a significant degree disingenous. One is saying something that sounds nice and respectful but makes no sense.
And ontology and epistemology. What one thinks is real and what one thinks is the route to knowledge. Paradigmatic differences lead to fundamentally different approaches to most of philosophy.
But I am critiqueing his use of ‘wise’ and wisdom. I precisely object to those terms in context. To an abrhamic person being humble before God, having faith, learning from authority, belief in the transcendent and so on are all wise. To a physicalist these are idiotic attitudes. Different paradigm, different wisdom.
Of course they can respect each other have a nice dialogue. It has nothing at all to do with the interaction. It is a simple impossibility of considering the same things wise. To judge them wise is silly, given that what one considers wise based on one’s own paradigmn would be opposed and completely different.
No. Though wisdom obviously affects behavior, so there could be ground for different there also necessarily. If A thinks it is wise to acknowledge the presence of God, B, the physicalist cannot possibly think this is wise. They can have nice chats and arguments, but to say. I disagree, there is no God, but I recognize your wisdom in acknowledging the existence of God MAKES NO SENSE.
No, hey can be best friends. AGain saying I disagree, there is no God, but I recognize your wisdom in acknowledging the existence of God MAKES NO SENSE.
REad what I wrote again. I refered to disrespecting WHAT the other considers wise. There is a giant neutral area between disrespect and saying it is wisdom. Surreptitious considered it wisdom and that is just silly. It is diplomacy not groundedi in reality. To a physicalist the most important wisdom of the abrahamist CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED WISDOM. And vice versa.
As for the first statement, I don’t recall saying that but if I did, what I meant was that in philosophizing, we must keep an open mind - except of course for things which are blatantly inane and absurd.
Gut reactions are our intuitions and they can be flawed.
Can you give me an example of what you mean by that?
One can also say the opposite of that. Our gut reaction can tell us or try to when we’ve become closed off to some idea we just want to push aside…that is, if we tend to know ourselves a bit.
That’s just plain logic there. But some people who are not capable of seeing that something is NOT JUST THAT, that there is more to be seen, might not go along with that.
I suppose that that would depend what gem of wisdom someone was speaking about. There are some things which are quite obvious, right? no matter who is speaking. It is our personal biases whicnh get in the way and just want to sweep what someone else has said under the carpet even when on some level we understand that it may be valid or legitimate.
That doesn’t even sound diplomatic. That just sounds dishonest. Wouldn’t it be better to say: “well, we can agree to disagree but I respect your right to feel that way.” lol That sounds more logical to me.
Or do you personally feel that one ought not to even respect one’s right to even feel that way? That’s a legitimate question.
True.
lol So are you saying that it is NOT good?
No, that is one thing which philosophy is beneficial for. It does whet your appetite for learning, for questioning, for seeking the truth and on and on. Philosophy IS a tool, you know.
I wasn’t speaking of those who wrote philosophy books - it’s quite evident that that is the apparent reason they wrote. I was speaking of ways in which philosophy can be beneficial. Philosophy can also be beneficial in showing us ways in which to live. Consider the philosophy which is spoken in the bible in certain books. There is truth and wisdom there. That’s beneficial.
But philosophy books themselves (can one say themselves here? lol) are such fodder for learning how to live, for thinking in ways which we never had before, they are like pathways and stars into the dark recesses of our minds, where we’ve never been before. They enlarge the world, the outer and inner one.
I understand what you mean here. An example would be one who would create an image for god, as in a face and one who would simply create a symbol for what he/she intuits of god. The one who would simply create the symbol would think the other an idiot for “assuming” to know or to suggest what god could ever look like. I kind of think that it is irreverent and irrelevant to put an actual face to god. But that comes from people thinking that god has made us in its own image and likeness and that god could even have a face lol - we don’t comprehend that it is we ourselves who have made god into ours (image). If that made sense. lol I’m rambling.
True and the wisdom of both would be in best knowing how to come together in some kind of mutual understand - some shared harmony.
Yes, that does make perfect sense. One thought will necessarily influence another - kind of like a domino effect. Poor analogy there.
But would a physicalist actually go that far? Do not some believe that there is something? Some may be deists but not theists. Or am I wrong?
I understand what you mean now. I think that the actual words respect means to turn back and take another look. In that regard, it isn’t necessarily a negative as far as our perspectives go. We can either see it or we can’t. BUT there are some things concepts which we aren’t seeing simply because for whatever reason we choose not to - philosophically speaking I mean. Doesn’t that make sense?
At this point, I can’t remember what S was considering to be wisdom. lol But I’ll backpeddle, look and reconsider.
I responded to the first idea before and you are responding to my response by repeating your assertion. AS far as gut reactions, this is not a response to what I wrote. You saw the words gut reactions, but what you write here is not a response to what I wrote.
Yes, of course. If you read what I wrote in my previous post, I said that I am not arguing philosophy should be for closing minds. If I disagree with your generalization, philosophy should only do X, it does not mean I think philosophy should only do Y. I am saying it should do both.
Which is the issue I am having with you.
For me the word wisdom covers things that are not obvious.
Feel? We are talking about wisdom. If you disagree with someone else’s wisdom, it is not wisdom to you.
It’s legitimate in some contexts, but not in this one since I said nothing about someone not having a right to their feelings.
Again, note the word I highlighted. You say philosophy is X (in this case around having an open mind). I say it is not only X, but also even the opposite Y (learning how to close things out). If I say it is NOT ONLY X, this does not mean I am saying it is NOT X.
If you do not suddenly see what you are missing here, you are missing something still.
Well, this is getting closer. If you think suppressing desires is wise as a general rule and you meet a hedonist that hedonist cannot possibly respect your difference by thinking this is wisdom on your part. If you have a different view of things, you wisdoms will not align.
Frnkly my wisdom has been to avoid certain types of people.
Physicalists, at least some, go all the way.
Sure, that can be the case. I am not saying that if we disrespect another’s wisdom, we must be right. Obviously since then we would both be right to disrespect the other’s ideas.
There are some things I will never reconsider.
There are some ideas I do not respect and I cannot imagine this changing.
I see some of what passes as wisdom to be not simply not wisdom but actually very damaging.
Being open is a poor rule. Being closed is a poor rule.
The trick is knowing when to be one or the other or some gradation in between.
I don’t even know him, but everyone’s constant gossip and talking of him makes me not like him, it might be from the ‘attention whoreness’ that I find annoying.
I know, that fat, ugly attention whore.
Look how many times he’s said he’s superior, and done nothing to prove it.
I don’t bother with him, either.
I only start threads and bash him and then accuse him of attention whoring.
Calling him fat and ugly helps.
We all know superior people are thin and gorgeous, like us, so he must be one dumb fuck.
Look another thread that fat fuck started to get attention…and another…and another…
He must be one ugly son-of-a-bitch to start so many threads about himself.
Desperate for attention because he does not get any in his real life.
Probably has no friends, and is a virgin.
Feels better thinking of him in that way.
Cathartic.
Smells like…victory…ya know.
Like, so what, I can’t contradict anything he says but at least I’m better looking and happier, right.
Technically I didn’t start the thread, I never have. Secondly I don’t know if he has a different user here and is starting threads about himself, just posing under another alias.
It does seem like he is an attention whore seeing as people continue to start threads about him. I don’t see the reasoning for starting them.
You do realize we’re online right? And that using sarcasm online in text form is kind of pointless.
Point taken…as pointless as calling someone fat and ugly on-line when you cannot respond or contradict what he says.
Or is it?
I see that other people starting threads about him is an indication of his whorishness…
I see the point.
Oh, believe me, I see the point.
Good one.
Almost as good as him being fat and ugly, on a philosophy forum.
This forum is amazing.
How could anyone feel superior to people making such devastatingly brilliant points, all intellectually oriented?
Only a desperate fat, ugly, lonely, virgin, with a tiny penis and with no love in his life, that’s who.
I don’t remember writing any of that, just said it’s annoying seeing so many pointless threads about someone who hasn’t contributed anything, that I have seen.
I remember when I used to be a troll too, x10 more annoying than your attempt at it. So, that’s the polite way of me telling you that you fail at it and should pursue something you are good at.
You don’t remember?
Look up…waaaay up and read.
No need to remember.
Point being, and it was a brilliant one, that if a pretty girl receives all the boy attention, then the other girls call her a whore, behind her back.
It’s a fascinating point to make on a “PHILOSOPHY” forum.
Oh, dear boy…troll is what you people call anyone that exposes what you are.
You are a boy, right…'cause you sound churlish.
Point is, again, not having anything to respond makes girls attack the person, and when that person reciprocates they cry and run to the teacher, accusing them of violence and unnecessary brutality.
We’re back in high-school.
Here the whore flaunting…and here the fat ugly bitch screaming “look at me” like a child…some already given, and the rest you can look up yourself, if you care.
Point being that you don’t show this same attitude when appreciation is shown to others on ILP.
So many appreciation threads on here.
It’s like a self-help community, or an AA meeting.
Not any for you Artimas…too bad.
Too sad.
No point in bringing it up.
But you missed the point…in between the lines.
Must have been when instead of looking up, you looked down and saw your… navel.
Momentary blindness has been reported in times of emotional stress, approaching hysteria.
I’m grateful for Satyr’s obesity and physical deformities, otherwise we would have pic after pic, and vid after vid of him washing his clothes, swinging sticks, brushing his teeth, or riding in cars, at the beech, or just being fabulously good looking…or we would have these dramatic Hollywood good byes and insanely wonderful declarations of self-esteem…
If he were good looking and fit, like many of the members on ILP, his attention-whoring would take a whole other dimension.
Let’s appreciate that about him, shall we.
Now all we have to endure are his constant threads about him, and his name being dropped every so often for no apparent reason, other than him being miserable and pathetic, because of his obesity and deformities.
And let’s appreciate those who manage to never say anything above the mediocre, forcing us to pay no more than the attention allotted to the healthy average.
With great personal effort they’ve managed to never be too interesting…or barely enough to not be total bores, but at least they are fantastically good looking.
How about an appreciation thread for mediocrity.
I, for one, have resisted posting my good looking bod and face, and will continue to post uninteresting mind-farts, to escape this illness.
Many of you have inspired me, and I appreciate it.
