Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:23 pm
I actually don't recognise the concept of public. To do so is detrimental to mental well-being
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I’ve heard that there are medications that can restore mental well-being.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:23 pm I actually don't recognise the concept of public. To do so is detrimental to mental well-being
I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magiccommonsense wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:02 pmI’ve heard that there are medications that can restore mental well-being.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:23 pm I actually don't recognise the concept of public. To do so is detrimental to mental well-being
Consider substituting “society” for “public” or “general population”.
Be sure to categorize where "you" stop and where "others" start.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:09 pm I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magic
How do you know which washroom to use then?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:09 pm
I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magic
I refuse to call people squatters or deserters, or immigrants, because all people are individuals-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:31 amHow do you know which washroom to use then?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:09 pm
I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magic
Which side of the road to drive on?
Which foods to eat and which poisons to avoid?
Whether to take an umbrella in rainy weather?
To fill a car up with gas (if you drive)?
To obtain a driver's licence to drive a car?
To not jump out of ten-story apartment windows (unless you are suicidal)?
The answers to all these questions depend on the process of pre-categorizing conditions and figuring out ensuing very likely consequences of actions.
You simply can't live without categorization, pre-judgement, and bias. Categorization is pattern-recognition, and some people can't see that pattern.
but you just did. Or do you have an alternative word for people who avoid wilfully and against the law military service; and a different expression for people who live in abandoned buildings because they can't afford better; and do you have a different name for people who originally were born in a country different from where they live now, and have landed legal status, but haven't got citizenship rights?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:00 pmI refuse to call people squatters or deserters, or immigrants, because all people are individuals-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:31 amHow do you know which washroom to use then?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:09 pm
I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magic
Which side of the road to drive on?
Which foods to eat and which poisons to avoid?
Whether to take an umbrella in rainy weather?
To fill a car up with gas (if you drive)?
To obtain a driver's licence to drive a car?
To not jump out of ten-story apartment windows (unless you are suicidal)?
The answers to all these questions depend on the process of pre-categorizing conditions and figuring out ensuing very likely consequences of actions.
You simply can't live without categorization, pre-judgement, and bias. Categorization is pattern-recognition, and some people can't see that pattern.
You fail to draw a distinction between ontology and behaviorism.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:00 pm I refuse to call people squatters or deserters, or immigrants, because all people are individuals
I believe that it's wrong to call people immigrants or citizens, when people are created by planets-1- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:19 pm Notwithstanding the foregoing, I think an individual retains his or her individuality even if you call the person an immigrant (if indeed he or she is an immigrant), etc. Categorizing does not strip individuals of any attributes they may otherwise have. Thinking that categorizing may place them in a position of loss of individuality is a fallacy, methinks.
By being an immigrant, a person is certainly not a citizen; but are citizens the only people who are allowed to be individuals, with their own personality? It would be childish to answer "yes".
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:42 pm I believe that it's wrong to call people immigrants or citizens, when people are created by planets
People can speak. Planets can'tTimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:26 pmtrokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:42 pm I believe that it's wrong to call people immigrants or citizens, when people are created by planets
Why have you stopped there though?
Planets are created by Galaxies. Galaxies are created by cosmic dust. Cosmic dust is created by The Universe. And we don't know how the universe was created.
So then we shouldn't speak about anything in the universe?
Why is that important? Parrots can speak too. So can dolphins. Most animals have means for communicating with one another.
Parrots don't use money, or create institutions and militariesTimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:37 pmWhy is that important? Parrots can speak too. So can dolphins. Most animals have means for communicating with one another.
Why have you cherry-picked people?