Philosophy and Art

I understand. Would you agree that “conscious thought” is nothing other than “imaginary speech”? Personally, I think that in a lot of situations these “conscious thoughts” hinder thinking. We talk in order to communicate. When there is no reason to communicate, there is no reason to be “conscious of your thoughts”. Because, when you’re “conscious of your thoughts”, what you are really doing is you are imagining yourself sharing your inclinations with others. And when there is no reason to do so, it’s a waste of energy. The goal does not require it. We do it merely because we are used to doing it. Because we are used to talking. We don’t do it because it is necessary. Imagine yourself in the wild having these “conscious thoughts” before deciding how to go about hunting your prey. It’s excessive. It does not help you in any way. It’s pointless because there is noone to listen to you. The more efficient approach would be to keep your mind silent. By forcing it to stop talking you force it to focus its attention on what matters. In fact, you force it to think more and to act only when it is necessary to act. But then, it appears that according to you, such a person, relying mostly on his intuition to make decisions, does not think. Apparently, because his thinking process is opaque. He is not aware how he thinks, so he must not be thinking.

A strategist never shares his most conscious thoughts.
A philosopher must he a strategist.

This site shows why.

So if not thoughts and thinking, when you are on autopilot driving through typical city traffic while your mind drifts away onto distant day-dreams, what do you want to call that calculating, predicting, strategizing, and so on??

JSS,
Didn’t we have a discussion about this autopilot mode years ago? I can’t recall the thread.

Possibly. I can’t remember the discussion.

But the spoken language can and does express those very complex thoughts.

Those so-called “strategists” are liars and fakers; so by “strategizing” they just mean “lying” and “faking”.

We do not only talk in order to communicate, but also in order to e.g. get power … and so on. So, communication can also be something like a lie, a fake, a mask, an excuse … and so on and so forth.

Imagine yourself on a philosophy forum (if there is a real one at all :wink: ) having no “thoughts”.

That’s irrelevant.

Maybe for you, but not for me.

Communication is not only used, but also misused, especially for power, control. And that is absolutely relevant for all living beings.

So, ILP is an example too. The misuse of communication can be find in each ILP thread.

The point is that there is such a thing as “subconscious thoughts” whether you agree with it or not and whether you think that statement is a language abuse or not. Everyone can understand that statement pretty easily except for the paranoid few who see deception everywhere. Thoughts are necessarily conscious blah blah blah and yet we all know that we also make intelligent decisions unconsciously. Apparently, these aren’t thoughts. If you don’t talk you are not thinking. There is no thinking without talking. “Talking is everything”, says the herd animal. It’s become a habit to scream “language abuse” and “language games” whenever someone cannot understand what others are saying. It’s a very convenient way to save oneself the trouble of trying to understand what others are saying. Just fixate on what is superficial and never ever pay attention to what is hiding beneath the surface.

Talking is langugae, regardless whether you agree or not.

Here is an “Elephant Talk”, produced by an animal herd:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7hnVnjvjY0[/youtube]

That is language too, but of different kinds. This “animal herd” is talking by using musical instruments, bodies, voices. There is communication and there is expression in that musical and non-musical language.

By the way (and in order to come closer to the topic): It is art to a large and philosophy to a lower extent.

Now you can value it and say that this art and philosophy are typical for our late modern phase. Okay. The heck with it!

Here is the text of that said song:

This animal herd is lamenting the senselessness of human communication. :wink:

You are like one of those people who say that there is no such a thing as self-deception.

I can hear these people screaming that this is a consequence of language abuse.
I say that this is a consequence of taking words too literally.

Self is a multiplicity. It is not a single thing.
We treat it as a single thing for the sake of convenience.
So when we say A decieves A what we really mean is that some part within A (say A1) deceives some other part within A (say A2.)

The statement that talking is language is a fact. I was talking about a fact. You are trying to put something in my mouth I never said. I did not say that there is no self-deception. If you want to tell something about self-deception, then just do it, but note that it should have to do with the topic of this thread.

Hmm…are they? Have you ever suddenly woken up in a sense ~~ out of a daydream? We think in our daydreams. I am not so sure that they are conscious thoughts…that we are conscious of them.
Some thoughts come to us suddenly from out of the blue. Are they conscious thoughts?

Would you define conscious here as something that you are aware of, self-aware of, in the moments when they are happening?

I am not saying that I am correct here. I am just wondering…

Hello Arc,long time here.

Maybe a little mediation may offer a different view.
In one sense , the thought in a dream is not one where the person dreaming can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is in fact dreaming.

But then in real life we have ultimately the similar problem2, hence the outcry in cases of extreme situations of feelings of unreality: “am I dreaming this?”

Not to bring back the adage, “Life is but a dream”.

I would like to know what you think about the following text: