On the Nature of Philosophical Discussion ...

Post Reply New Topic

------------ A Primer ------------

-------- Ideas from the Obsolete -------

--------------------------- by El Viejo, the Old Philosopher

We aspies are born with our "thinking caps on", so to speak. However, we have all grown up being conditioned within an NT-Centric world, where we have been taught to "bow down our heads, put on dark-glasses, and walk about with white canes."

Many aspies have let their reasoning abilities get rusty, from long social conditioning. Many enter here in the Politics, Philosophy & Religion Forum no longer remembering what Philosophical Discussion is all about.

Our American Educational System is currently seriously dysfunctional with regard to teaching children how to reason, and reasoning is what philosophical discussion is all about.

Philosophical Discussion is where one presents ideas for evaluation. Philosophers do not expect their Ideas to be accepted as "Truth", but only as Ideas to be evaluated by anyone who cares to do so.

One is expected to use one's reasoning ability to evaluate Ideas and either accept or reject the validity of the Ideas presented.

Tools used in Philosophical Discussion include humor, satire, parody, irony, metaphor, etc.

Ideas may be presented having historical basis, but are clothed in metaphor, dressed out with freshly ironied shirts, a new parody shoes, and a nice fresh satire around the neck.

Enjoyment of Philosophical Discussion requires one to have an Open Mind, and bring along one's Sense of Humor.

Here is a typical, illustrative example, often used in University Level Philosophy Classes, on Hindu philosophy from Dr. Frederick Manchester's introduction to the Mentor Religious Classics edition of The Upanishads.

"We have said that the orthodox Hindu regards the Vedas as his highest written authority. Any subsequent scripture, if he is to regard it as valid, must be in agreement with them: it may expand upon them, it may develop them, and still be recognized, but it must not contradict them. They are to him, as nearly as any human document can be, the expression of divine truth. At the same time, it would be a mistake to suppose that his allegiance to their authority is slavish or blind. If he considers them the word of God, it is because he believes their truth to be verifiable, immediately, at any moment, in his own personal experience. If he found on due examination that it was not so verifiable, he would reject it. If he found that any part of it was not so verifiable, he would reject that. And, in this position, the scriptures, he will tell you, uphold him."

It is very unfortunate that many intelligent people leave schooling with an inadequate appreciation for philisophical discussions. Even the absurdest debate can be a masterpiece of wit, and something very beautiful, and very funny. I think that debate is far and away the most interesting way in which two individuals can really engage one another.

i like this point because it really captures the fun of debate. The truth content of statements is really not the stuff of philosophy; the logical structure of arguments is where the real fun is at.

But people with AS are not the only ones to have their intelligence beaten out of them. To maintain an appreciation for discovery really requires one to be somewhat insulated from the real world, so if you want to be a highly functional individual you need to become more concerned with ends, with understanding the world only inasmuch as it helps you control it.

Because people want quick answers that would give them easy solutions to problems.
Seems to me that there is utter hatred in modern world towards philosophy.

People these days either worship religion(s) or science.

Can philosophy function without basic premises though? Science and religion are philosophies, what condemns them more so than any other philosophy? Their popularity? At the very least theology can be done in regard to philosophies and philosophical questions.

Philosophy in general does not have fixed premises,like religion and science.

In broad term philosophy is thinking about thinking,but thats hardly a fixed premise.

Philosophy in general is critical toward itself and about thinking as such,unlike science that simply took logic and reason unquestionably,and unlike religion that simply took sets of dogmas.

Many philosophers have questioned validity and power of human thinking and philosophy in general,and this is evidence of non-dogmatic nature of philosophy.

Scientists never question validity of science as such,like Religious persons never question their religion.

No, but to have a philosophy is to have fixed premises and to not stick to a philosophy is to live a very confused and befuddled life.


However, philosophers will tend towards dogmatism because they cannot switch beliefs every 2 years. That would be a strange and twisted life. People strive on some consistent basis of behavior, a philosophy that sticks, and thus philosophers must be dogmatic on some level.


So? That does not mean that their life patterns truly change. Unless their life patterns DO change then they aren't really changing philosophies and if their philosophies don't change then how are they more admirable than any other thinker?

And who on earth said that questions were valuable? Not even philosophers really find the truth, so how are they not as dogmatic as any priest or Dawkins? They still live their lives and often stick to certain ways to view the world.

I take offense at that

Philosophy is not same thing as skepticism.We all believe in something,off course.
Difference between dogma and belief is that dogmatist is absolutely certain about his belief,and he wants other to accept his belief as 'truth',and to obey his will.




Philosophical views are not lifestyles,and philosophy is not unified thing,as a set of established beliefs and fixed interpretations.



But unlike Dawkins,for example,these philosophers do not deny right of other people to have belief.
We all stick to certain ways to view the world,problem is when someone try to impose his belief as 'better' then yours,or even worse...when he use his belief as 'knowledge' argument.

I know we all do, but the basic ideas of life are matters of dogmatism. What area is both central to understanding and still capable of meaningful knowledge? Certainly not ethics.



Lifestyles are derived from philosophical views so my distinction is not meaningless. Philosophy does have dynamism, but everything does. Even religions have changing theological views.


Hey, I never said that Dawkins wasn't a zealot. I am against foolish zealots myself, but we have not proved his more basic philosophical beliefs to be bad things.

People today are conditioned through Mtv and reality tv to be too stupid to think, to hate thinking, and this same propaganda pushes them further into their little thought boxes and further breeds alienation and dysfunction among the people, due to their differences. The random hindu guy the OP pointed out is a prime example, although religion has always been a very shakey subject. But that's the problem, people appear to need a guideline, so the thinking is done for them, and they become so emotionally attached to that guideline that they become unwilling to think about it critically, and will refuse blatant upright proof of anything that runs counter to it.
It's not even just religion, it's ideology period, be it religious, political, or whatever. To truely find out the truth behind what is REALLY going on in the world, and to find real answers, I believe it is necessary to scrap these corn-fed guideposts and just work with the basic of human understanding, critical thinking, and compassion.