Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

47906Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • mary.josie59
    Apr 28, 2009
      It seems nearly impossible to think; observe how we think; separate our emotions from both—while both voluntary and autonomous physical inter/actions are occurring. And even though by definition philosophy lends itself to many realms except technology and theology, the mind doesn't seem to want that distinction.

      I think there is also an overlapping of philosophy of science and bioethics which needs to be sorted out. All the social engineering folks need to become more ethical, and scientists need to be less exclusionary. But that's precisely where durability and adaptability to your chosen environment become key. You have to fight for your right to participate, perhaps organize like the atheists Bill mentioned. Existentialism encourages activism, but unique and sometimes anachronistic individuals are pigeon-holed and exclude themselves. So if a particular issue involves politics, race, culture, science, and philosophy, it's going to be nigh impossible to sort it all out. Do we really need to?

      To find something valuable to contribute seems to me more important than courtesy or a cultural cache. Whether presented down-and-dirty or hoity-toity, ideas are never wrong. They're discussed, digested, rejected, implemented, etc. What more can one want?

      Mary


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      >
      > Still attempting to get a purchase on the basics. How to discriminate different realms of concern. As an example, a recent reference, the question arising, what is an Anglo-Saxon? This is not a biological category. However, the further question arises, as to the superstitious and magical nature of science, to which I have referred also. Political suppression is ignored and denied, so that what claims to be science may only be a highly selective application of focussed intelligence. To become a 'scientist', one must pass certain tests of social acceptability, which are cultural or quasi-religious, and may be themselves highly unscientific. What responsibilities are involved in philosophising? What is the relevance, if any, of courtesy? May one only be a contemporary existentialist if developing a certain toughness or dexterity, or does the acquisition of such skill vitiate the quality of thought itself?
      >
      > Louise
      >
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic