What is sought in Philosophy?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: 1Learner
[What is sought in philosophy?]

Does that understanding of anothers understanding cancel each other out and you understand that nothing is everything and everything is nothing and only the experience matters and not how we interpret it or attempt to explain it.

I'm pretty sure you started asking a question, but without seeing punctuation in the post I'm not entirely certain.
Does one's understanding cancel out anything in any case? How could it?

Besides this, you describe a process occurring (somewhere in the mind) which I would guess is sequential to the cancel-each-other-out action. Does this process also entail the realization of which you speak? Is that realization the end-all to any philosophical experience?

What I present are only my musings on the subject, I do not purport them to be truth for anyone other than myself and those the thoughts resonate with.

originally posted by: 1Learner
a reply to: InTheLight
i.e., proposing an origin of the body, its gradual evolution into self-awareness so that it could actively use a will in order to discover its faculties, to use those faculties in relation to large numbers of similarly intelligent creatures, to become so well acquainted with its instincts, emotions, the spectrum of personality, and with others beings that eventually a society of these beings is formed.

I've stated in another thread that it is my belief that the body is the environment of the mind, reacting to the stimulation of the bodies environment, ie. "external reality." The origin of our bodies are as apparent as the origin of ants and whales. Life's function is to increase complexity by building on past complexities, some times it fails and the complexity is lost, some times it survives long enough to build something more complex. Sometimes it is left to stagnate by overwhelming adversity.

Self-awareness is tricky, and I'm not certain that is the right term for the answers you seek. Dogs are self aware, but their societies will forever be limited to their instincts. Man's societies have the potential to be ruled by reason and not instinct but we rarely achieve such lofty goals. Contrary to popular belief, the civilizations of man have not been ruled by reason, they've almost always been ruled by biology/instinct. The greatness that man has shown has given us glimpses at the glory of reason and compassion, but we almost always divert the goal out of fear, greed, jealousy, or some other lowly instinctual mechanism. If you seek an answer as to what separates a man from a dog, then reason, compassion, and foresight are the only answers I have. All of which are highly fallible tools in man's toolbox.

This society then masters the communication of concepts; a mastery which may have happened as an understanding amongst the beings developed when experiences were shared, recreated or vividly & correctly imagined, then utilized to their fullest within the bounds of body/mind. As for the next step of their development...well anything could happen next. It's all just a fantasy without any evidence from the beginning of the supposed proposition. I figured someone here might have proposed it after having investigating the nature of reality long enough.

What you are describing here sounds like knowledge/wisdom to me. I know of no society that has mastered the communication of concepts or knowledge/wisdom. We are forever unknowable to each other, I cannot know what goes on in your mind any better than you can know mine. At best we strive for compassionate understanding of another's position/perspective.

The size and complexity of man leads us to imagine we are more than just biological/instinctual. That the things we've created within the confines of our societies are godlike attributes. They are nothing more than the beguiling misuse of our biology, examples of a craftsman building a cathedral from tools he doesn't fully understand. It takes nothing from the creation as it shows how ingenious humankind is, but one should be wary of calling it a masterful use of the tool.

I've no idea if I'm speaking the right points for your intention, with any luck my perspective has added or contracted yours enough for you to elaborate on the issue or clarify your position. I'm thankful your mistake has produced as much thought as it has.

a reply to: 1Learner


Yes, you seem to desire to be part of a utopian society, but who within this society will do the grunt and dirty jobs?

originally posted by: 1Learner

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Will Durant said philosophy is about the synthesis of all knowledge into your own view of the world. Philosophy is the most important when trying to make the knowledge of science or history useful.

What is meant be the synthesis of all knowledge? Does it (or do you) mean all knowledge gained by one until the creation of a philosophy?
And what constitutes aview of the world? Would it just be the thoughts which are formed when one examines their perceptions?

Synthesis means adding information into your own personal experience and judgment. Learning.

The view of the world is what you use to make all of your decisions. Your personal knowledge base in your head.

a reply to: 1Learner

I'm pretty sure you started asking a question, but without seeing punctuation in the post I'm not entirely certain.

Sorry,

I did edit the post shortly after posting.

Is that realization the end-all to any philosophical experience?

It can be just as it can be the beginning to whole new one.

Does one's understanding cancel out anything in any case? How could it?

It can. By making a choice.

You can choose whether you want any realization be an 'end all' or 'create a new view' to philosophical experience.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
What I present are only my musings on the subject, I do not purport them to be truth for anyone other than myself and those the thoughts resonate with.

It is a nice read.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
The origin of our bodies are as apparent as the origin of ants and whales. Life's function is to increase complexity by building on past complexities, some times it fails and the complexity is lost, some times it survives long enough to build something more complex. Sometimes it is left to stagnate by overwhelming adversity.

I hope you are open to have these truths contested.
Yours:

1.) The function of life is to increase its own complexity.
2.) Life builds on past complexity.
3.) Life can fail to achieve its function (but does it fail because of internal or external circumstances?).
4.) Separate forms of life can evolve/build upon each other because of survival; and, because of survival, life forms can become extinct or life's progress towards achieving its function slows.

Mine:
1.)...
2.)...
3.) Does it even truly fail if we recognize that one form of life succeeds another? What if we consider that life cannot stop once it has begun and suppose that nothing too adverse happens to its...culture medium?
4.)...

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
Self-awareness is tricky, and I'm not certain that is the right term for the answers you seek. Dogs are self aware, but their societies will forever be limited to their instincts.

Maybe I'm using the wrong term. What I mean by self-aware is the condition in which a creature can explore it's relation to groups/societies, can explore its relationships with others, explore its source of compassion and wisdom, can communicate a variety of concepts with others.
Basically, a "self-aware" being can notice all these things. I don't know the process by which a complex chemical life form becomes self-aware.

A being which has a sort of biological programming that does not yet allow it to explore those things listed above would not be considered "self-aware" in my book.

I would guess that self-awareness can be passed on or taught to any creature that possesses the faculties of mind/body that the teacher has set as standards for his/her own self-awareness.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
All of which are highly fallible tools in man's toolbox.

There's probably just no motivation to use those tools constantly nor put them into practice and feel that they are correct and powerful.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
What you are describing [...] sounds like knowledge/wisdom to me. I know of no society that has mastered the communication of concepts or knowledge/wisdom. We are forever unknowable to each other, I cannot know what goes on in your mind any better than you can know mine. At best we strive for compassionate understanding of another's position/perspective.

Perhaps. And perhaps there are undiscovered perceptions of a being such as human, perceptions to which we are as infants and there we are without the experience of mind-savvy parents to guide us into perceiving a larger world.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
The size and complexity of man leads us to imagine we are more than just biological/instinctual. That the things we've created within the confines of our societies are godlike attributes. They are nothing more than the beguiling misuse of our biology[...]

I have a similar belief that was passed onto me. I'd say the same about the first belief you stated in your post. I wish I could justify both with logic or provide some sort of evidence to prove truth. Better it would be to investigate why I've held onto the beliefs so far yet without proof; to know such a thing, I think would relieve at least 1 human of its beguiled condition.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
I've no idea if I'm speaking the right points for your intention, with any luck my perspective has added or contracted yours enough for you to elaborate on the issue or clarify your position. I'm thankful your mistake has produced as much thought as it has.

I don't know either, I'm just writing back whatever hits me. I don't think you've inquired about my position, but I think I've explained my issue in another post here.

meta awareness and refinement of modal thinking, resulting in heuristic integration of such.
preferably without too many words.

a reply to: InTheLight
Those who can do the work without incapacitating themselves or others because of it.
I'd rather not post my imaginations any more.
---

I appreciate you each taking the time of your day to reply, I don't have much else to say.

Philosophy is a devotion to the nature of reality as it (perhaps) should be, whereas science is a devotion to the nature of reality as it (perhaps) actually is.

a reply to: 1Learner

It is a nice read.

Thank you, I'm often self conscious that my words do not adequately convey my meaning.

I hope you are open to have these truths contested.

I am always open to my ideas being contested, one cannot grow in truth and knowledge without the contention of the perspective of others. One's perspective should always be open, otherwise you risk fanaticism and stifle growth.

3.) Life can fail to achieve its function (but does it fail because of internal or external circumstances?).

Mine:
3.) Does it even truly fail if we recognize that one form of life succeeds another? What if we consider that life cannot stop once it has begun and suppose that nothing too adverse happens to its...culture medium?

On 3: When speaking of the life of an organism or group of same type organisms then yes, they can fail completely: extinction. The means by which a organism achieves extinction is irrelevant to it's classification as extinct. When speaking of “life” as a principal, ideal, or enduring function of the universe, then no, life builds both on failure and success, it is the beauty of the system of all things. You are correct in implying that life will only cease when the universe itself ceases, as it's a byproduct of the complexity of universal reality.

Maybe I'm using the wrong term. What I mean by self-aware is the condition in which a creature can explore it's relation to groups/societies, can explore its relationships with others, explore its source of compassion and wisdom, can communicate a variety of concepts with others.

Basically, a "self-aware" being can notice all these things. I don't know the process by which a complex chemical life form becomes self-aware. A being which has a sort of biological programming that does not yet allow it to explore those things listed above would not be considered "self-aware" in my book. I would guess that self-awareness can be passed on or taught to any creature that possesses the faculties of mind/body that the teacher has set as standards for his/her own self-awareness.

I don't believe we will every truly know the process by which awareness springs. The process is too multifaceted and the disciplines are constantly in conflict. We can only ripple it's surface and see what we stir up and draw conclusions based on inadequate perspective. Perhaps with centuries of concentrated efforts or with third party perspective, we could write the program, but those are fantasies in our realities.

Is it not enough to know that the complexity of the thing is what brings about the awareness level? Why is identifying and poorly labeling a process required? In this regard I go by the adage: you cannot teach a man something he thinks he already knows. When science engraves it's theories, thought and ingenuity are stifled. Possible mystery become improbable fantasy and we naively believe we know a thing.

There is most certainly hardwired factors of awareness in biology. A pack of wolves interacts with awareness of self, environment and others, but again will never reach the level of awareness man is capable to. All sufficiently complex entities are aware of their environment, even if that awareness is only on an instinctual level. The fly that avoids the swatter, the termite that builds mile high skyscrapers to house it's society. Do you seek a quantifier that separates you from a termite? And if so, to what end? Both man and termite are functions of life sharing an environment, only our complexities differ.

If you seek to build a paradigm of ultra-awareness, then man is the best example we have. Through our experience, we have no other example of a creature capable of exploring and understanding as many realms of being simultaneously as humanity can. But again, this is a question of complexity as not many organisms match the complexity and physical capabilities of man. That is not to say a dolphin's level of awareness is any less than a Nazi's as both their environments limit the growth of their awareness. The only difference is man is capable of willfully holding their awareness level based on abstract concepts and emotion as opposed to a looking a shark in the face and choosing to think it unreal. Where I would wager a dolphin is much freer in it's growth as it has fewer labels to depend on and a less muddled base of truth.

There's probably just no motivation to use those tools constantly nor put them into practice and feel that they are correct and powerful.

I don't think that's the case at all. The primary function of religion, before corruption, was to extoll the virtues of the supreme ideal of man personified by the imagining of God. That ideal is still what holds religion together, even if perverted from the source. War and death may be overly prevalent in our history, but it's not the sole source of growth, just an effective and dangerous one. Compassion, empathy, trust and understanding is what drives our species, no matter what our history and culture choose to focus on. Conflict is merely a byproduct of frustrating perspectives and an unwillingness to change.

originally posted by: 1Learner
Perhaps. And perhaps there are undiscovered perceptions of a being such as human, perceptions to which we are as infants and there we are without the experience of mind-savvy parents to guide us into perceiving a larger world.

I'm in complete agreement with you that we are children. Barely newborns in our utilization of grand ideals. But, we've been around far too long as a species to disassociate ourselves from responsibility or to claim ignorance of the truths we've uncovered. Our parents are our collective past experiences, history is our parenting guide we choose to ignore as irrelevant or are distracted from thanks to chaos, confusion, and the misleading freshness of the cycles. This behaviour is displayed with every generation, and it is incredibly apparent in the last few thanks to our connectivity to each other.

It would appear I've run out of space, I'm more long winded than I thought.

Continued in next post.

a reply to: 1Learner

Continued:

I have a similar belief that was passed onto me. I'd say the same about the first belief you stated in your post. I wish I could justify both with logic or provide some sort of evidence to prove truth. Better it would be to investigate why I've held onto the beliefs so far yet without proof; to know such a thing, I think would relieve at least 1 human of its beguiled condition.

A belief is only “passed on” when individual thought is denied. Otherwise, a idea is presented and it other finds nutrients in your soul to grow, or is dropped on dry, lifeless soil never to approach belief. You don't strike me as as a thought denier. Sorry to challenge semantics and common phrases, but labels are a point of contention for me.

Why is “faith” such a bad word when the finite faces the infinite? This is not faith in god I speak to, it's more of a general faith in the function of things. Faith is a logical determination when one looks into the void and the immensity of it shrinks the soul. There is more than enough evidence that man knows very little. That with every question we answer, billions more are presented. That is the journey we are gifted with and abuse as a matter of culture. The unanswerable questions that challenge and display all we could be is more than enough motivation for the likes of man.

I'm sure I'll get some flak for this, but logic is detrimental to truth. It seeks to eliminate a base function of that self-awareness discussed. Man is gifted with foresight. As hard as it is for science/logic to admit, we look into the void as a matter of being. We draw in all available information regarding possibilities, apply the filter of our perspective (of which logic is the great denier), and draw a conclusion as to proper courses on the sea of probabilities. This is an aspect of humanity that has been ignored, poorly defined, and outright demonized. Logic is a great tool of clarity and obfuscation. It's duality must be recognized or risk limiting your possibilities.

I don't know either, I'm just writing back whatever hits me. I don't think you've inquired about my position, but I think I've explained my issue in another post here.

After re-reading the thread, it would seem you seek a clearly defined, easily understandable textbook detailing the complexities/causalities of life. That as a single document/argument does not exist, or at least I haven't come across it in my years of searching. It would be decades of intense and honest study in more fields than I could list to reach a meagre level of comprehension, and still that understanding would reside in faith and belief influenced but not defined by reason and logic.

a reply to: JaspersCheese

I've been trying to respond today, having written something incomplete. I might work on it tomorrow or just shorten it/discard it.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
Is it not enough to know that the complexity of the thing is what brings about the awareness level? Why is identifying and poorly labeling a process required?

It is enough for those who do not want nor need to discover more. Then there are others, unfortunately, who wish to discover the plan that was drawn up before the complexities occurred. In understanding the process of self-awareness, the past and future of the evolution of beings can then be discovered, and perhaps a manual of evolution for the human can be regained and followed correctly. Society could jump on this and develop as it, I supposed, should.
"Why is identifying and poorly labeling a process required?"
Why was Darwin's theory of evolution required?

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
[...]When science engraves it's theories, thought and ingenuity are stifled. Possible mystery become improbable fantasy and we naively believe we know a thing.

Don't you think you should identify and label the process by which that stifling occurs?

Also, maybe you are wrongly blaming science and its theories. I do not believe they possess the ability to personally stifle anybody. In my opinion, only a circumstance (bearing some sort of adverse force) or an individual can stifle another individual's thought and ingenuity; perhaps an individual can even stifle one's self.
When a scientific theory is noticed, one who tries to use [independent] thought and ingenuity is simply given a certain direction regarding usage thereof. Engraving a theory sounds different from this, though.
I would guess that the stifling occurs when the definitions of [ingenuity/independent thought] are distorted, or rather other "tools" of the mind are ignored.
I'll also guess that the same happens wherever there are people who are not taught to discover the faculties of their body/mind. Where they are not given the leisure nor the encouragement to do so, but they are demanded to abide by certain ways of thinking that are already paved for them. I'm not trying to blame any countrywide society nor any hidden, evil cabal - people can be demanded by their own bodies to think or behave a certain way.
To pinpoint the cause is useless if one does not have the power to turn it on & off.
That is why I mentioned that the faculties of the body/mind be discovered. Individuals could learn to handle the adversity thrown at their minds.
Of course, stifling forces can also be removed elsewhere if those stifling forces, i.e. a mysterious cabal, can be identified, and if the way to remove them can be described in a process that basically gives the instruction.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
A pack of wolves interacts with awareness of self, environment and others, but again will never reach the level of awareness man is capable to. All sufficiently complex entities are aware of their environment, even if that awareness is only on an instinctual level. The fly that avoids the swatter, the termite that builds mile high skyscrapers to house it's society. Do you seek a quantifier that separates you from a termite? And if so, to what end? Both man and termite are functions of life sharing an environment, only our complexities differ.

A body/mind can be aware of instincts and emotions; it would have that sort of primitive awareness (or consciousness).
There must be a set path of evolution for the body, the mind, and consequently the awareness. This would explain why creatures, such as wolves, do not experience the same emotions over and over again forever...
The creatures undergoing evolution strive towards something, and I believe that the lesser intelligent creatures (the ones focusing on earlier levels of evolution) strive towards self-awareness...

I don't think that's the case at all [...] Compassion, empathy, trust and understanding is what drives our species, no matter what our history and culture choose to focus on. Conflict is merely a byproduct of frustrating perspectives and an unwillingness to change.

How do you know that our species is driven by those things? Maybe you'll pull up the "hardwired into our biology" bit...well so is fear. A dark side is in the biology too is it not? The glorious tools by which we could be led - compassion, reason, foresight, etc. My point involving them was that the reason we are not led by them is because we are too distracted (by conflict or what else), and so untrained on how to handle the distractions, that we do not integrate them into our government.

originally posted by: JaspersCheese
I'm sure I'll get some flak for this, but logic is detrimental to truth. It seeks to eliminate a base function of that self-awareness discussed. Man is gifted with foresight. As hard as it is for science/logic to admit, we look into the void as a matter of being. We draw in all available information regarding possibilities, apply the filter of our perspective (of which logic is the great denier), and draw a conclusion as to proper courses on the sea of probabilities. This is an aspect of humanity that has been ignored, poorly defined, and outright demonized. Logic is a great tool of clarity and obfuscation. It's duality must be recognized or risk limiting your possibilities.

I found it difficult to understand what you were saying here, I don't mean to bother more than I might already have, but I would [ask] for you to elaborate on this.
You seem to be saying logic has the function of denying things. I believe that's incorrect; a human uses logic simply to reveal things, and a human chooses to deny something and feel the results of that denial.