I want to applaud Grave Disorders post and say that I too am like that. I mention this because I also wish to respond to what Aphelion said:
I have posted this before, but I will again. Too often in my life I meet people that learn topics, subjects, genres, etc and cling to them as if they couldn’t live without them. I once spoke with a philosophy professor about one of my philosophies and at each point he would jump in and say “Ah! Your a Cartesian” or “Ah, your a Humian” or “Ah, your a utilitarian”, etc. And this impeded our conversation because instead of taking my words for what they were, he was trying to fit me into a category, to label me, to argue against me what has been argued before in textbooks. My point here is that like Grave Disorder said, thinking independantly is very important, so to answer APhelion I want to say, that it doesn’t matter what it is related to - if I answer then you will only form further conclusion on what I was saying without me having said it because you will extract any necessary information intentionally or not from the school of thought or the historical philosopher and this will create a misconception of my point. My statement can be applied to derive from more than one philosopher and more than one school of thought - but again, it doesn’t matter. What matters, especially if you are actually interested in my point, is that you understand MY words, not their origins or derivations.
I agree, labels are detrimental to discussion and the formation of viewpoints. When I talk about my political views people often label me as a Communist, and then refuse to argue against my points, instead arguing against Stalinism… which is fairly far removed from my views. The worst thing is when they try and tell me what I do and don’t believe, because once they’ve labelled me they can’t accept any deviation from the label itself… that gets me quite angry.
This is maybe why I value independent thought so highly, because I am derisive of those who wholeheartedly accept someone else’s views without modifying them and are overly attached to their own label. A lot of Marxists, for example, are guilty of this, quoting Das Kapital in the same way a Christian would quote the Bible- without analysis.
While I understand the reluctance to affix your apparently unique pov to any broad definition it is nigh inevitable for general communcation, or if it helps how you present those ideas in an open discussion where a number of persons wont be aware of your personal connotations.
I see you have elucidated your viewpoints previously for which many poters may grasp what you are saying, but because this forum is public and Im new, you may understand why I look for some kind of conventional definition. More specifically my knowledge of philosophy is shallow, at this stage if someone talks about particular concepts it is only natural for me to most readily identify them in the context of what is detailed in introductory books (which seems to be the only ones I ever get my hand on, Im unsure how many different but similar 'introduction to western philo" books a library requires yet it seems to be a lot).
As a side point Aphelion, even my city library has only the sparsest collection of philosophy books, 50 at the most. Most libraries allow you to request books, I would suggest initially just introductry books to specific subjects that you do a bit of research on. There seem to be a few of us here who go to one university or another so maybe asking here we might be able to point you in the direction of the best introductry book for that particular field as we are invariably told one by our lecturers. Alternatively there are 2nd hand book shops or gaining access to local university libraries, though I don’t know how hard that is, or if they even let the public become members of their libraries.
In England it seems the term library is becoming synonymous with free computer access rather than those dull paper things. Everytime I go to my local one 5 or 10 more machines seemed to have sprung up. When you think how many books they could have bought it almost makes you want to smash the damn things up. The trouble with the web is that most information on it is very superficial, the stuff that isn’t tends to be very hard to find and you have to be thoughtful about your keywords. It’s also a lot harder to concentrate when reading something on a computer screen than if you actually have it in your hand.
Unfortunatly Noesis and Hippias seem to have been down for about a year now, any one else know of any good philosophy specific search engines?
Isn’t this labeling? Those who label are people who do the above.
I have no problems with labeling and find those who do use it as an escape route to avoid explaining what they mean.
Aphelion,
I have no idea what Magius means be “all knowledge is within each of our brains”. It is either obviously untenable (So all we have to do is dissect to find knowledge?), a misuse of language (He confuses brain with mind), or tautological (knowledge is defined by what we know, therefore it is in the mind/brain).
Or a discussion of potentiality/possibility and therefore useless. What isn’t possible?
He also apparently can’t distinguish between Berkleyian idealism and Kantian idealism. Thus, the reference to matter.
Don’t be fooled. You’re intuitions are correct. But if that’s what people want to call independent thought, I want no part of it.
It would be very annoying to have a conversation like the one you had with that college professor. Obviously, he was unable to think except to categorize.
But I hope, at any rate, he would have spelled what he said as “you’re a Cartesian” instead of “your a Cartesian” (which makes no sense).
Ah Brad I think I see where both yourself and Magius are coming from. Im rightfully pedantic when it comes to definition in technical discussions, so I understand your issue.
Conversely (and this appears to be what Magius referred to as previously explained), in the same area I know a lot of personal ideas and notions of broad concepts have many nuances and degress of clarification. So if Im in a group or place where people have learnt my particular meanings then Im happy to forgo strictly formal and conventional language for the sake of all brevity. Which is why I assume Magius meant mind when he said brain.
Again I understand and share your distaste when things are ill defined and amorphous to boot, yet in this case I think Magius was being curt for the sake of ease, which I can also perfectly understand
Well, okay, but this recourse to labeling lablers seems to me to be a detour to substantive discussion.
But there are two types of lables:
If someone says, “You’re a communist so I don’t have to talk to you,” my question would be why do you want to talk to them. There are others out there who do listen.
On the other hand, if you say, “So you’re a Marxist then,” this can be used as a kind of shorthand. It would be a mistake to see this term here as sharply delineating a proscribed set belief (Have you ever met two Marxists who actually agree on anything?), it’s a signpost to help get a rough picture of what the other person is talking about or to bring out what are usually unstated presuppositions on the other person’s part.
All fields and specialties have their jargon: lawyers, physicists, philosophers, etc. That’s how they communicate with each other. In philosophy, “analytic,” “skepticism,” " Being" and so on. Nothing wrong with that, especially if the users of the jargon know what they are saying, which is not always true. E.g. “absolutes.”
In order to measure something, its necessary to define it completely and precisely and accurately. I don’t believe this term has yet been officially defined, so all these IQ tests are a bit wishy washy as to what they’re testing.
I believe intelligence is our defining evolutionary characteristic as a human. What separates us from other animals seems to be a significant difference in ability to think logically and laterally and be aware - problem solving. Where most animals have evolved physically to adapt to their environment, humans have evolved to utilise our environment to our advantage. For example, instead of concentrating on developing long, strong, athletic legs for speed, we build the wheel and develop cars (eventually…).
So intelligence is an ability to solve problems by using your environment to your advantage in the best, most efficient way.
Yes; I agree with you Brad; doesn’t there have to be an agreement to begin the conversation in the first place? Both parties to the conversation have to function within that agreement even though sometimes they might be unaware of whether or not they do in fact agree.
So ask! Instead of talking about me to others, address me! You speak as though I am dead and all that is left are my words in this forum for you to squabble over what I meant with this, that or the other. Once I am dead, be my guest, until then - have some respect and instead of assuming…ask.
Brad stated:
Really? OBVIOUSLY UNTENABLE, so obvious that you need not ask for an explanation or clarification of any kind, you simply understood everything I had to say and for this reason it is OBVIOUSLY UNTENABLE. Yet, you previously said you had no idea what I meant with what I said. You assume I meant dissection based upon your own presumptions. Furthermore, you’re pretencious enough to think that you just got all the answers and believe that you can simply set them out as 1…2…3 and there is no other options, nor any possibility that I might have another reason which you haven’t thought of yet. Well, then you have answered your own question for yourself. I will be YOU and say that like you I have all the answers in my head and I will posit them as I wish and about whomever I wish without recourse to the source.
Brad stated:
In my opinion, potentiality, possibility, plausibility, is all we have. Life is statistical. Are you not having a discussion with Aphelion on the possibility of what I meant with my words instead of addressing me?
Brad stated:
Where do you get off telling me or anyone else what I can and can’t distinguish between? There was no mention of idealism from me, Aphelion made mention of it believing it was my view, and I said it was not. You have no damn clue where my reference to matter comes from, your too ignorant and naive to ask where it does, instead, like a little highschool boy you go around telling everyone that I don’t understand the difference between Berkleyian and Kantian idealism, promoting your pompous ego.
Brad stated:
Your the one who is fooled cause your making conclusions before you hear the whole story. There isn’t anything specific that I was refering independant thought to, except that which it is, independant meaning ones own. My thoughts are just that, my thoughts - when streams of ideas are grouped together into schools of thought or terms to agglomerate them all, and when a person has a view that only has certain aspects of one or many of these but does not entail or doesn’t agree with any one of these groupings in their entirety - it hinders another persons understanding if they continue to try to fit them into these terms or schools of thought, instead of hearing out their words for what they are. This, you fool, is independant thought…as the dictionary states:
Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity
You say you want nothing to do with independent thought, well more power to ya. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
You also, apparently need to have ‘labelling’ clarified…as you quoted someone else saying that they are labelled communists, I will use communism as an example. If I want to debate with someone about my political and economic views, and my views happen to be a hybrid between communism and democracy, and in exemplifying my point which happen to be original within communism - and the person stops me and labels me a communist and then goes on to argue against communism in general and not against the points I made which they haven’t even finished hearing yet, then this causes a problem. Ofcourse, my explanation will entail labels, for many words can be termed labels and I must use words whether written or spoken to communicate. But this is about labels that have many subcategories and differing facets to them very few people believe in their entirety or don’t believe in at all. For there are good things and bad things present in many views, we must pick out what we believe and don’t believe from within these. If we aridly stick to either something being completely wrong or completely right then there will be no progression, if anything there will be degression.
Ah, Magius, give it a break. Attacking my thoughts, assumptions, positions does nothing to enhance, support, or prove, “all knowledge is within each of our brains”. You keep telling me not to think, not to assume, not to interpret, but to wait, wait wait.
It preserves your independence at the expense of productive discussion on your proposition. To me, you’re still just saying that your independence, your originality is more important than anything in particular you’ve said.
If you want to clarify your position, please do so, but stop telling me what to do.
I’m not here to convince you that all knowledge is in our brains, my post was in defence to your obtuse labelling and demeaning statements. I wasn’t attacking your thoughts, I was defending against your assumptions and accusations. This has nothing to do with whether we have all our knowledge within our brains or not, this has to do with your disrespectful attitude.
Brad stated:
What the hell are you talking about? I never said for you to not think, nor did I ever tell you to not interpret or to wait, wait wait. Get your head out of your ass and face the facts. I did tell you not to assume, and you shouldn’t, you do it very prematurely.
Brad stated:
Wrong, my independence is the reason I write the way I do, the reason I have started as many discussions as I have (productive discussion) on a variety of topics. It is the reason why I am well learned in as many topics as I am, cause I am not afraid to be different. I do not let myself be grabbed by traditions, social customs, unwritten principles, expectations. In response to your latter statement of the above quote, your God damn right I’m saying my independence is more important than anything I have said. What I say is only one facet of my independence, it would not be independence if it was constrained by language and had no other outlets. My indepedence comes out in a variety of ways, ways that are always in flux. Sometimes I find new ways of being indepedent and sometimes I go back to ways of independence that I haven’t done for a while.
Brad stated:
I’ll tell you what to do all I want if what you are doing concerns me. It’s pathetic to try to be sly and fit a demeaning statement or two about someone within a post responding to someone completely different. It’s low. If you got something negative to say about someone, be a fuckin man and come out and tell them to their face (in a manner of speaking) - or in this case address your post to that person in particular without hiding or being sly.
What demeaning statements? Look at what I said again:
When did I ever attack you personally? I did attack the proposition, “All knowledge is in our brains.” I said the idealist framework was a correct intuition. I gave three other interpretations all of which strike me, still strike me, as perfectly legitimate interpretations of what you said as it stands.
You haven’t disproved (even in a loose way) any of my assumptions or assertions yet. You’ve told me not to have them. You’ve told me that it is disrespectful to have them. Yes, I could be completely wrong about what you mean, but telling me I’m wrong doesn’t do anything.
Magius said:
Which makes my point for me. Thanx. Independence is more important than discussing a particular thought.
But isn’t it a bit odd for someone to claim:
and then claim:
I never demeaned anyone.
How does this work unless one appeals to social conventions, traditions, and social principles etc.? By what right do you claim I have broken the rules?
I claim, by the standards of philosophical discourse as written in journals and books today, that I have done nothing that crosses the lines.
I think intelligence is relative. Where you are, what youy are doing, who needs your help, who cares etc… are all aspects which go into one’s decision of how intelligent someone is. So in some surroundings/contexts I might be intelligent but in others I might not.
I agree. Intelligence, in my opinion, does not totally equate to IQ … In the end of the day, what does an IQ test really prove? … perhaps it only proves that you are goot at IQ tests. there is the problem with bias in these tests … although there is ethnocentricity and other issues … and in addition, I believe that there are forms of intelligence that aren’t covered by IQ tests.
Creativity, for instance … art, music, poetry, prose - do all these things require you to have a high IQ to do? … I am probably asking / answering questions that have already been explored, but i’m new here so i’ll just put across my view.