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

47910Re: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • bartleyoreg@aol.com
    Apr 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hb3g, interesting name, anyway I really like what you said.? While philosophy is a method that uses theory to investigate for me it is more of an attitude.? Philosophy works best in my opinion when questions ideas, beliefs, values.? Philosophy is a way out of mind prison but it unfortunately can become a new prison.? When philosophy becomes doctrine there is a danger that doctrine or school of thought?becoming dogma and prison.?I tried a thought experment with myself, "What if everything I believe to be true is wrong."??I found that to be very freeing.??
      Michael ?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Herman B. Triplegood <hb3g@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 8:36 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking

      What is philosophy? Doctrine? Theory? Method?

      Or attitude?

      That's my favorite right there. Philosophy is, more than anything else, an attitude.

      What kind of attitude? A freedom thinking attitude. A freedom affirming attitude. That's my opinion anyway.

      For what it's worth...


      What does philosophy get in exchange for its attitude? Knowledge? Certainty? Understanding?

      I think it gets only just a little bit in those three areas. I think that the lion's share of what philosophy gets in exchange for its freedom thinking attitude is...well...insight.

      Pure and simple. Deep clarity. That's good enough for me. In fact, it is way more than enough.

      I have a special place in my heart for the concept of insight. As far as I know, only hegel has directly addressed it...in the Phenomenology. Insight. The heart and soul
      of philosophy. The meaning of enlightenment.

      But hey...

      This is all just my own personal gig on the matter. And I am pretty sure there are plenty of people out there who would disagree with me on what philosophy is. Oh well. You can't please everybody can you? And we don't all have to think the same. Nor do we all have to arrive at the very same insights either.

      To hell with orthodoxy. That's what I say. Individuality, in thought and action, is in the end, I think, its very own reward.


      --- 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

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic