Do you really love philosophy?

As I already said in this thread: I like philosophy very much, but I would never say: “I love philosophy”.

I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

Philosophy is one of my greatest passions in life and it has been of great benefit for me in my personal life keeping myself mentally sharp during some of the most difficult portions of it.

But would you therefore say that you “love philosophy”?

I have been obsessed with philosophy, addicted to it, curious of it, enraged with it, I’ve hated it, I’ve had fun with it, etc.

In other words, my relationship with philosophy has been a plurality. But as to the ultimate question, yes, I would say that I love philosophy, and that I also have all of the troubles with philosophy that any love affair brings about.

I have a passion and love for learning or acquiring information so I suppose that I do.

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

James S Saint

But language came first, James, even if it was just the beginning of guttural-sounding utterances trying to express one’s self to communicate and to survive.

Couldn’t you say that logic necessitates a high level of consciousness? Do you think that the human being was at the time language was forming a highly conscious and intelligent being?

You might say that about math and science but language? You might even say that in terms of philosophy but perhaps not so much as the former two though I may be wrong in that.
Again, I think that what is required for a language to function is the human need to express one’s self and to communicate with others ~~ aside from the fact of language and words being valued and meaningful, retaining the memory of words and using them so that language does not die out.

How about poetry? How much logic is actually required in the composing of a poem? A love of language and words, and imagination ad continuum but logic? Of course, there may be logic required in the composing of some really wonder epic poems.

I don’t love philosophy. I just like deep thoughts sometimes

Do you mean your own deep thoughts or other deep thoughts too?

I suspect that you “love” it more than you think. To love is to desire the support and continuation of. I imagine that if the entire thought of philosophy was fading away, you would stand up to reinstate it. That would be “love” (although not to be confused with “being in love”).

both

i guess thats fair

I guess, that’s fair. :wink:

Normally, wouldn’t that statement refer to a relationship between humans, James?
Like a true married couple, wanting to add to the maturity and growth, both emotional and spiritual of the other or any kind of a “real” relationship.

Can we speak in terms of love when it comes to Philosophy? We can say that we have a passion for it, a strong connection to it but is that necessarily love?
We say that we love people because of the way in which they make us feel but is that love?

There is this awesome Oak tree in the park across from me. I can think in terms of loving it but in what way do I actually contribute to its maturity and growth?
I do feel a really strong connection to it. I have a passion for it in a sense but is it really even aware of my existence? :evilfun: I do not think so. It is all me.

I value where philosophy and philosophers can take me in my everyday life. I value their wisdom and insights and the pearls which I have gathered up. I value thinking/reflecting/wondering about things and questioning them though I suspect there are some in here who would question THAT but they actually do not matter to me. I do not see myself as some kind of a scholar. They barely look on me with so much tunnel vision. My LIFE is not simply an ILP life.

I sometimes question just how much these scholars have learned in their quest for wisdom and truth? Or is it simply about, for example, the long text and excerpts which Arminius placed in here. I think that he was trying to make a point there but I may be wrong.

So, that is my response to the Subject.

Logic does not necessitate a high level of consciousness - understanding logic requires an awareness of a pre-existing logic.

The brain is able to be logical without language.

I think that I put the cart before the horse here with my previous quote.
It is high consciousness in my book which calls forth logic.

Well, there is a logical part of our mind.

Hmmm…I am not saying that you are wrong here but can you be sure of that?
Doesn’t it require a certain amount of language in order to think cognitively?
Doesn’t thinking require language, even if that language is our own thoughts?
Without language, how could logic be interpreted?
I am not sure I expressed that well.

Yes, calling forth . . . I really like that much better.

I myself can be certain of what I am saying. To think cognitively requires symbols that can come in the form of remembered experience, images and all the other things except language - that is not to say that language is not required to think cognitively just that cognitive thinking can function in the absence of say English. The language of your own thoughts is enough to enable thinking - we are talking about telling the difference, so differencing and building new thoughts from previous thoughts. Language of sorts is required to exchange logic not so much interpret it. If you are looking at logic written in a language then yes you require the ability to parse, understand and express that logic written in that language << I feel I have missed something here.

I think you expressed yourself very well, very well. All this of course is dependent on the way things are looked at.

You hit the nail on the head, I think.
The beginning , was a jungle but with no language. But it was a jungle of depending on seeing, and perspective. With that there were the beginnings of the rules of the jungle and power struggle.

The most elementary form of the struggle of power had to do with the either you hold your ground/or stay dilemma, that must have existed without question in the pre-lingual form.

That is a pre lingual .pre logical basis of both logic and language.

But I see Arc’s dilemma, since its difficult which came first, an early expression of grunts and non verbal behavior as letting the adversary feel intentions or the other way.

It seems though, these early signals of intent may have less affinity to conscious manifestation then the proximity of the pre-logical to the logical basis of progress toward a clarification of intent on part of adversaries.

I know this is not expressive as well as it may be needed to start a development from signal to sign, but again, I am personally as of yet to do it as well, literally to get across the chasm from early a priori to common sense philosophy.

I guess literally it is as hard to bridge the gap now, as it was back in pre logical times.

That’s what I feel is the danger of using pre logical language to describe what’s going on with modern and post modern terminology. I guess for me it is a modus operans.

Without being defensive , as it is not clarified in my mind, it would be useful to discover the basis of philosophical love, or, the love of philosophy in these pre logical terms.

Perhaps logic existed before it was fully realized. Interesting to think about nonetheless.

:-k