Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 am
You are going into the wrong direction.
Note this is a philosophy forum and thus we need to conform to the general understanding of what is philosophy.
I would suggest that the
general understanding of what philosophy is would come from what the word 'philosophy' derived from.
I agree with this but I would prefer to dig deeper than its etymological root to its effective empirical-rational essence.
By any chance does the "empirical-rational essence" of the word 'philosophy' just happen to coincidentally coincide with how you want to use the word 'philosophy'?
If so, then is that not just an amazing chance of a happening?
If not, then how do you overcome the contradiction?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amWhat I had presented to you as generally understood as 'epistemology' is based on the consensus of the majority of those within the philosophy community.
If the general understanding of what is philosophy, is the love-of-wisdom, then,
The majority of those within the philosophy community would obviously be that community with a love-of-wisdom, which is by all accounts the only community with that love is the community of human beings. That is, humanity or ALL human beings.
So, the consensus of the majority within the philosophy, or human, community would be the majority of human beings, and NOT as you are trying to suggest just a certain group of human beings that exist within the WHOLE group of human beings.
As can be noticed here select groups of people try and hijack words and phrases for their own underlying reasons.
I agree the ideal should be ALL human beings.
But at present we have to be pragmatic and rely on what is active at present, i.e. the conventional group of people and work from that basis towards the ideal.[/quote]
Are you really that blinded by your own elitist views? Can you not see how using words like 'present', 'pragmatic', 'active at present', 'conventional group of people', are ALL words that just conveniently coincide with YOU, who is living in this particular present time and WHO is wanting to hang around with a particular group, and do things in a particular. Those words ALL fit in perfectly with YOU and the way that you want to live now. There is absolutely NO objectivity at all on your part. Every thing is absolutely subjective and specifically relative to YOU.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amUntil you have published your version of what is 'epistemology' and accepted by the majority of peers, then you have to start from the general understanding of what is epistemology within the common community of philosophy.
The common community of philosophy IS ALL human beings. Therefore, the peers are also ALL human beings. The ironic part here is that the younger a human being is the more truer philosopher they are.
As above.
We have to understand the current status and work towards the ideal.
We do NOT
have to do that at all. That is just the way that YOU
want to do things. You write in such a particular way that absolutely every thing fits in with the way you look at and see the world. Your own perceived world views are blocking you from looking at, seeing, and thus viewing at the real and actual world.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amNote the concept of 'epistemology' is not confined to the Greeks but exist as a subject within all philosophies around world under different names representing the generic empirical-rational essence of what is epistemology.
You seriously can not detour even the slightest of margins away from YOUR OWN already gained PERSPECTIVE of things. You have a BELIEF and no matter where it takes you are going down that path, no matter what.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amIn any case, your concept of epistemology is not likely to be accepted by the average people engaged in philosophy.
The people engaged in what you call "philosophy" are so entwined in trying to outwit each other with words, in support of their own distorted BELIEFS, that they have forgotten the actual art of forming sound, valid arguments.
A group of adults engaged in actually trying their hardest to support, and to find support for, their own distorted views is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is much different than that. Philosophy is just desiring to stay OPEN so that you can continue to learn more, and anew. Very, very few of the people engaged in what you call "philosophy" have this desire. Most of these people prefer to find and use words so that they will appear elite, individually and as a group, from the rest of that group known as humanity.
I have not yet inquired, but I think it might be hard to find just one sound, valid argument that has been formulated in the past century or two by one of these adults who like to be referred to and known as a "philosopher". Remember, a 'sound, valid argument' is one that is an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed.
If you do happen to find one, or many, then share them all here. I especially would like to see it/them. Also, it has to be a sound, valid argument that has has some real affect on the well-being of humanity or on anything else in the rest of the world. Otherwise, it is just an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed about some truly unimportant thing.
I understand there are groups battling to put their favored ideology in the forefront to dominate the narratives.
Do you, would you, even consider that you are in one of those groups, or, that you yourself is a group of one, within one of those groups, which is within the WHOLE group of All, doing the EXACT SAME THING?
Is continually insisting God is an impossibility a favored ideology?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amBut I believe the default is to keep it open
How exactly is insisting God is an impossibility keeping it open?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amand eventually upon continual never ending questioning the truth will gravitate towards and get closer and closer to [without the expectation to achieve] the ideal [impossible] truth.
That has already been reached. Just some are way off track to be ever able to see it.
By the way, are you saying that the ideal truth is impossible?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amI quoted Russell's
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Russell presented his full argument in his 'Problem of Philosophy.'
Note, I believe the above was related to his pre-analytical days.
Whilst I would not accept the above on a wholesale basis, I believe there are very relevant elements within the quoted above that is very useful for the purpose.
Once again you quote some one or some thing else as though what is in those words will provide some overarching answer. By the way, did you notice once again that what you quoted here very coincidentally agreed wholeheartedly with your already held views?
Remember that that person is one in that group of people who you adore and which you yourself aspire to belonging to. That is, that group of people who adore being known as "philosophers". They think that that word gives them some sort of superiority over others. The fact is the word was stolen from the most innocent and truest of philosophers. Anyway, you want to quote a person from that group of people who as of yet have NOT actually achieved anything at all worthwhile for humanity. You picked words from a person from a group of people that you admire and worship. You are behaving no better than a person of religious faith who believes the people who are in the same group of people that they themselves admire, want to belong to, and worship.
Do NOT forget the 'general understanding' is NOT the one you want to choose and pick from. To obtain the ideal 'general understanding' of any thing comes from ALL people. NOT just from a pre-selected group of people nor persons. You continually try to argue your point from the actual point of view you are looking from, which is the very opposite of being open entails. To be able to argue a point correctly you have to be able to look from a truly objective point of view, and NOT from the truly subjective viewpoint that you see from.