Post by hourglass on Aug 14, 2012 20:55:56 GMT -5
"Philosophy itself is a discipline without a peer, resembling both the sciences and the arts, but belonging with neither."
Philosophy is all about asking questions, looking at things from all kinds of perspectives, and ultimately, to discovery truth. Philosophy has been around for as long as free thought and spoken or written word have. It is, for lack of a better phrase, 'thinking outside of the box'. But, if you compare the past and the present, to who has these revolutionary thoughts, philosophers always stand out in whatever culture to which they belong. To me, it's not really thinking outside of the box, it's just plain thinking.
Everyone else has just limited themselves to their own little comfortable zone or box. Sticking with what they think to be right, according to their own experiences and whatever they have been convinced to believe by others. Or to whatever standards their morals and virtues dictate. The majority never questioning, and thinking laws are always unbend-able. Where philosophers know that these "laws" are only as we have collectively come to perceive and define them as a whole.
The conscious word; thought altogether, whether written, spoken, or expressed in any way, is like a prison, the mind is unlimited. But when we try to express what we think, all that comes is the words we've been taught or conditioned to use. We are already living by other people's predetermined set of rules from early on, and disciplined when we do not. Though, I don't personally believe we can be unlimited beings outside of our minds, simply because the world does not belong to one, but to all. Since early thought, it has been believed that these thought-forms that we call words had contained some sort of God. That the words we speak do not belong to us, but to that form. And it is true, if you understand that this "God" they refer to is only an abstract sort of nature to our own instinct and a means to bring order to the chaos of all that we do not understand, and not an actual being. (Not saying God does not exist, but many gods that have been constructed are just abstract expressions of the mind.)
I believe this is where the concept of angels and demons came about first. Where interbreeding between humans and gods to create deities first came about. Dreams of those superior to human, living beside them. There are those that understand and reveal the truth story by story and enchant others with their words, and there are those that know and distort it for their own personal benefits. (Note, I'm only speaking speculatively from a strictly archaic idea of what I believed to have been before now, I do not actually know exactly what or how anyone, even today, really thinks apart from myself). And this is assuming that the Truth is God. There are those that uphold it, and those that break it.
Though, yes, I do believe in a God, and angels and demons for that matter. I won't go much further into personal belief right now, or why I think what I do. Just clarifying to give you my perspective.
Anyways, I've gone a bit off track. All I meant to illustrate in all this was simply that, philosophy is a science in that it is a search for truth and discovery. Though philosophers are scientists in their own right, they do not strictly build off one set of beliefs as being correct and unbreakable law, but there are many different paths to the one truth. And it is an art, in the respect that there are many ways to express it, none being right or wrong exactly. Just that most tend to go with the safest route, of not really thinking for themselves individually.
This topic will cover a wide variety of subjects, and if whatever subjects I cover receive enough input from others, I'll make it its own topic of discussion.
The quotations you'll see throughout this topic are just outlines I've taken from a book: 'The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy'. So, we'll continue with the next outline. (Note, I'm not taking, or asking you to take everything in this book as fact, just understand that it is reasonable and that I am simply reflecting on these ideas.)
Monsters and Reason
"The truth is that we do not actually see what we now think we see: our visual field is fractured and delusive, and only our 'reason' tells us that ghosts, will-o'-the-wisps, and monsters don't exist, and that associated meanings and evaluations aren't 'out there' in the world.
The two chief morals of that speculative opening are these: first, that the pursuit of knowledge through the exchange of ideas is something that we must assume we have been about since we were talking beasts; second, that we cannot assume too ready an acquaintance with the world our ancestors explained, as if they had only to 'look and see' that things were as we now say they are...On the available evidence, most of those millennia were lived under conditions very unlike our own, we cannot take it for granted that our ancestors saw exactly what we say we do, and differed from us only in the explanations that they invented. Such an assumption blinds us to the way they reasoned, and incidentally saves us from any radical critique of our own present thoughts."
Because of those "demons" I spoke of before, those that twist words around for their own gain, there will always be doubt, especially considering we all hold our own inner demons that would do the same, given the chance. So, over time, things will get twisted, the truth is in the past, but you just have to sort through all the exaggeration to find it. The problem is not only this, but that our memory erases itself as we learn more through our experiences, and from one telling to another, no two stories will be told exactly the same way. So, some things are bound to be lost or over-written in time, unfortunately.
I do not believe in "monsters" based on what other people tell me they've seen, only because I know the mind can be deceptive, having wrestled with my own sanity for many years. I believe in what I believe in, purely on my instincts and experiences and those that compare. Why? Because, my reason tells me not to listen to everything that I hear, only that which makes sense. This is where skepticism comes in. Being skeptical is healthy. But many don't seem to understand that you can remain skeptical and still be open-minded.
Why is skepticism healthy? Because without it, we are all just puppets to everyone else's imaginations. How can one be both? Simple, realize that over time, your perceptions and your understandings will change. You can't say that it is always right, because there are all kinds of different circumstances and changing factors, but based on how long it has stood true to your own experiences AND those of others, how constant a principle is, you can assume it to hold some weight, at least. Just don't go overboard and say I believe in everything everyone has ever said because everyone is right and no one is wrong. That's just...yeah, no. Not going there. You should be able to see clearly how that just isn't healthy or reasonable on your own, and if you can't...then I ask: "How in the hell did you escape the mental institution?" Ahem, moving on...now.
How can these things exist? For some it's easier to ask how can they not. Just because they remain unexplained or are misunderstood does not mean something doesn't exist, there is no proof that they do or do not, only what we know and experience. Some things can be explained, but the ways to explain them are too complex for most to understand. And no, I'm not going to tell you everyone who claims to be a psychic and see ghosts and shit are real or telling the truth at all. Just that there is SOME truth in these things, even though they are taken out of context. Reason doesn't tell you they don't exist, skepticism and science do. I'm not going to claim science is wrong, just as I won't claim everything you read in religion to be wrong, but real scientists understand that their results are not completely correct, though the majority of it is on the right path. It is constantly changing, adapting to new discoveries, better development of knowledge and understanding of what's right or wrong comes slowly because it is based around human nature, which is flawed.
How is it flawed? Because, nothing is perfect, and if the past has taught us anything, it is that people are not always correct, and in more instances than not, are just plain wrong.
Philosophy is all about asking questions, looking at things from all kinds of perspectives, and ultimately, to discovery truth. Philosophy has been around for as long as free thought and spoken or written word have. It is, for lack of a better phrase, 'thinking outside of the box'. But, if you compare the past and the present, to who has these revolutionary thoughts, philosophers always stand out in whatever culture to which they belong. To me, it's not really thinking outside of the box, it's just plain thinking.
Everyone else has just limited themselves to their own little comfortable zone or box. Sticking with what they think to be right, according to their own experiences and whatever they have been convinced to believe by others. Or to whatever standards their morals and virtues dictate. The majority never questioning, and thinking laws are always unbend-able. Where philosophers know that these "laws" are only as we have collectively come to perceive and define them as a whole.
The conscious word; thought altogether, whether written, spoken, or expressed in any way, is like a prison, the mind is unlimited. But when we try to express what we think, all that comes is the words we've been taught or conditioned to use. We are already living by other people's predetermined set of rules from early on, and disciplined when we do not. Though, I don't personally believe we can be unlimited beings outside of our minds, simply because the world does not belong to one, but to all. Since early thought, it has been believed that these thought-forms that we call words had contained some sort of God. That the words we speak do not belong to us, but to that form. And it is true, if you understand that this "God" they refer to is only an abstract sort of nature to our own instinct and a means to bring order to the chaos of all that we do not understand, and not an actual being. (Not saying God does not exist, but many gods that have been constructed are just abstract expressions of the mind.)
I believe this is where the concept of angels and demons came about first. Where interbreeding between humans and gods to create deities first came about. Dreams of those superior to human, living beside them. There are those that understand and reveal the truth story by story and enchant others with their words, and there are those that know and distort it for their own personal benefits. (Note, I'm only speaking speculatively from a strictly archaic idea of what I believed to have been before now, I do not actually know exactly what or how anyone, even today, really thinks apart from myself). And this is assuming that the Truth is God. There are those that uphold it, and those that break it.
Though, yes, I do believe in a God, and angels and demons for that matter. I won't go much further into personal belief right now, or why I think what I do. Just clarifying to give you my perspective.
Anyways, I've gone a bit off track. All I meant to illustrate in all this was simply that, philosophy is a science in that it is a search for truth and discovery. Though philosophers are scientists in their own right, they do not strictly build off one set of beliefs as being correct and unbreakable law, but there are many different paths to the one truth. And it is an art, in the respect that there are many ways to express it, none being right or wrong exactly. Just that most tend to go with the safest route, of not really thinking for themselves individually.
This topic will cover a wide variety of subjects, and if whatever subjects I cover receive enough input from others, I'll make it its own topic of discussion.
The quotations you'll see throughout this topic are just outlines I've taken from a book: 'The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy'. So, we'll continue with the next outline. (Note, I'm not taking, or asking you to take everything in this book as fact, just understand that it is reasonable and that I am simply reflecting on these ideas.)
Monsters and Reason
"The truth is that we do not actually see what we now think we see: our visual field is fractured and delusive, and only our 'reason' tells us that ghosts, will-o'-the-wisps, and monsters don't exist, and that associated meanings and evaluations aren't 'out there' in the world.
The two chief morals of that speculative opening are these: first, that the pursuit of knowledge through the exchange of ideas is something that we must assume we have been about since we were talking beasts; second, that we cannot assume too ready an acquaintance with the world our ancestors explained, as if they had only to 'look and see' that things were as we now say they are...On the available evidence, most of those millennia were lived under conditions very unlike our own, we cannot take it for granted that our ancestors saw exactly what we say we do, and differed from us only in the explanations that they invented. Such an assumption blinds us to the way they reasoned, and incidentally saves us from any radical critique of our own present thoughts."
Because of those "demons" I spoke of before, those that twist words around for their own gain, there will always be doubt, especially considering we all hold our own inner demons that would do the same, given the chance. So, over time, things will get twisted, the truth is in the past, but you just have to sort through all the exaggeration to find it. The problem is not only this, but that our memory erases itself as we learn more through our experiences, and from one telling to another, no two stories will be told exactly the same way. So, some things are bound to be lost or over-written in time, unfortunately.
I do not believe in "monsters" based on what other people tell me they've seen, only because I know the mind can be deceptive, having wrestled with my own sanity for many years. I believe in what I believe in, purely on my instincts and experiences and those that compare. Why? Because, my reason tells me not to listen to everything that I hear, only that which makes sense. This is where skepticism comes in. Being skeptical is healthy. But many don't seem to understand that you can remain skeptical and still be open-minded.
Why is skepticism healthy? Because without it, we are all just puppets to everyone else's imaginations. How can one be both? Simple, realize that over time, your perceptions and your understandings will change. You can't say that it is always right, because there are all kinds of different circumstances and changing factors, but based on how long it has stood true to your own experiences AND those of others, how constant a principle is, you can assume it to hold some weight, at least. Just don't go overboard and say I believe in everything everyone has ever said because everyone is right and no one is wrong. That's just...yeah, no. Not going there. You should be able to see clearly how that just isn't healthy or reasonable on your own, and if you can't...then I ask: "How in the hell did you escape the mental institution?" Ahem, moving on...now.
How can these things exist? For some it's easier to ask how can they not. Just because they remain unexplained or are misunderstood does not mean something doesn't exist, there is no proof that they do or do not, only what we know and experience. Some things can be explained, but the ways to explain them are too complex for most to understand. And no, I'm not going to tell you everyone who claims to be a psychic and see ghosts and shit are real or telling the truth at all. Just that there is SOME truth in these things, even though they are taken out of context. Reason doesn't tell you they don't exist, skepticism and science do. I'm not going to claim science is wrong, just as I won't claim everything you read in religion to be wrong, but real scientists understand that their results are not completely correct, though the majority of it is on the right path. It is constantly changing, adapting to new discoveries, better development of knowledge and understanding of what's right or wrong comes slowly because it is based around human nature, which is flawed.
How is it flawed? Because, nothing is perfect, and if the past has taught us anything, it is that people are not always correct, and in more instances than not, are just plain wrong.