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

Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Wil, It s about time, anyway. A dignified good example is the best way to help the mentally distressed, in my view. Louise
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 29, 2009
      Wil,

      It's about time, anyway. A dignified good example is the best way to help the mentally distressed, in my view.

      Louise

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > L,
      >
      > I will not respond to that kind of statement from you.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:22 am
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking
      >
      >
      >
      > Wil,
      >
      >
      >
      > That is pretentious left-wing gobbledegook, and you did not answer the
      > question.
      >
      >
      >
      > Louise
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > L,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > In other words, race only makes sense on the level of ideology and
      >
      > > xenologism.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Wil
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      >
      > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
      >
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:03 am
      >
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking
      >
      > >
      >
      > > What exactly does have meaning, on the level of the genome??
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Louise
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Nice pandering. On the level of the genome, the concept of race has
      >
      > > no
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > meaning.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Wil
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:09 pm
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > -Louise,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > I very much agree with your statement Political suppression is
      >
      > > ignored
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > and denied, so that what claims to be science may only be a highly
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > selective application of focussed intelligence.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > The results of scientific studies to a large extent will be the
      >
      > > results
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > that the organization funding the study desires.In the US over the
      >
      > > last
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > 35 years or so, a good example is studies on pot smoking funded by
      >
      > > the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Drug Enforcement Administration.Any study funded by the DEA that
      >
      > > found
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > anything good about pot would never be published, and certainly the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > scientist would have lost a source of future funding. Likewise, any
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > studies comparing different races or the 2 sexes, if the results
      > come
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > out wrong will subject the scientist to charges of racism or
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > sexism.Certainly political and economic factors play a large role in
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > what studies are done, what criteria are compared, and the
      >
      > > conclusions
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > reached.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Tom
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > -- 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
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
    • nr_rajkumar
      To me philosophy is the art of discovering ones own ignorance and limitations.   NRR ... From: Herman B. Triplegood Subject: [existlist] Re:
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 30, 2009
        To me philosophy is the art of discovering ones own ignorance and limitations.
         
        NRR

        --- On Tue, 4/28/09, Herman B. Triplegood <hb3g@...> wrote:


        From: Herman B. Triplegood <hb3g@...>
        Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 9:06 PM








        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...

        Okay...

        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.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogrou ps.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]
      • mary.josie59
        The difficulty with philosophy is generality. Modern Existentialism is not concerned with abstract thought structures but rather problems arising from
        Message 3 of 26 , May 1 7:22 AM
          The difficulty with philosophy is generality. Modern Existentialism is not concerned with abstract thought structures but rather problems arising from subjectivity. Politics and science are more amenable topics because they are the most intrusive into our private and public lives. The various opinions we aim at one another are simply that. Mary
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.