When you say, "this one" are you referring to me or do you mean "this" as a self-reference?
I meant and mean 'you', "gary childress".
1. What do you mean by "open"?
NOT BELIEVING NOR ASSUMING that you ALREADY KNOW some 'thing'; and above in relation to just looking at or from one limited or particular 'thing' or perspective and NOT from a just Truly UNLIMITED, or OPEN, perspective.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:17 pm
2. What makes you say I am not "open"?
you were looking from an ALREADY PRESUMED position.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:17 pm
3. Do you think it is wrong for me to see things from a judgmental, crime or punishment perspective?
you WOULD SEE MUCH MORE and MUCH MORE CLEARLY FROM A Truly OPEN perspective.
So, being right or wrong I will leave up to you to JUDGE and DECIDE.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:17 pm
4. If it is the case that I am wrong to see things that way, how should I see things instead?
you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to look at and see 'things' ABSOLUTELY ANYWAY you LIKE and CHOOSE.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:32 am
Well, yeah, first rule of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong.
It is philosophy's gift to mankind.
The gift that keeps on giving. Or taking. As it may be the case.
Giving. It is vital to challenge ideas. If at any time in history we had given up and simply accepted the ideas of that time, we would be stuck with the ideas of that time. Quite apart from the nutjobs on this forum banging on about some lost cause fruitloopery, you can see the result of homogenised thinking in theocracies such as Iran, communities like the Amish and movements like the current Republican party in America. Having one pervasive idea is at best boring and frequently dangerous.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 10:22 am
It is philosophy's gift to mankind.
The gift that keeps on giving. Or taking. As it may be the case.
Giving. It is vital to challenge ideas. If at any time in history we had given up and simply accepted the ideas of that time, we would be stuck with the ideas of that time. Quite apart from the nutjobs on this forum banging on about some lost cause fruitloopery, you can see the result of homogenised thinking in theocracies such as Iran, communities like the Amish and movements like the current Republican party in America. Having one pervasive idea is at best boring and frequently dangerous.
I know all of that.
That’s precisely why I reject the homogeny known as philosophy.
It leads to harmful and strongly-normalising thought patterns.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 9:52 am
Whatever the common quality shared by all philosophy is.
That all ideas should be challenged.
Pretty much any idea that gets seen by a lot of people will get challenged, but that's not all of what philosophy is. There are works that extend the ideas of other philosophers works or apply them to new areas. Or interpret one philosopher via another. IOW philosophical acts are not restricted to challenging, neither as the first person to put out an idea, set of ideas, system, nor those who respond.
That anyone who claims to know is probably an idiot.
That would mean that a lot of classic works by philosophers are the works of idiots. Many through the whole history of philosophy state many things without qualitification. Which is great. Ideas might as well be, at least, often, put forward this way to generate both exploration and challenge.
Well yes, there is more to philosophy than critical thinking, but in the context of Skepdick's question, it seems to me to be the unifying feature. As for people who claim to know probably being idiots, firstly consider what probably means. There are many more ideas than there are truths. Secondly, any trained philosopher who hasn't grasped that all ideas are theory laden is definitely an idiot.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
Claims like 'I am blind' for example. Of course this could be provable irl, at least to a high degree of certainty. But I think even most philosophers are hesitant to rudely discriminate against the claims of someone who has consistantly made the claim they are blind for years and brought this into many discussions here. I can only suppose that the unapologetic trying to corner her in some contradiction is your way of showing how bad philosophy is. A teaching by negative example.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
Claims like 'I am blind' for example. Of course this could be provable irl, at least to a high degree of certainty. But I think even most philosophers are hesitant to rudely discriminate against the claims of someone who has consistantly made the claim they are blind for years and brought this into many discussions here. I can only suppose that the unapologetic trying to corner her in some contradiction is your way of showing how bad philosophy is. A teaching by negative example.
Let the pedagogy gleam!
Of course, that's what an uncharitable person would infer.
Instead of infering that there's a qualitative difference between "being completely blind" and "being completely colour blind"
Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:42 am
Speaking as someone who is *completely* colour blind, please try and convince me that colours actually exist at all.
This is a philosophy forum, you twat. People play "pretend" and move the goal posts all the time. And I am kinda good at figuring out bullshit from truth.
And far more importantly, I already have a far deeper insight into how Maia's screenreader software works; and far more importantly - how it DOESN'T work.
Which absolutely helps me navigate around her screen reader as a source of noise. Because I actually understand how communication works.
I had the same thought. At first I thought it was uncharitable to accuse a stranger of lying about their being blind like you did. And then just to keep at it, admitting nothing as it likely slowly became more and more obvious, even to you, that the person was not lying or at least might not be. But I when I realized the higher purpose, I changed my mind.
A little collateral damage is a small price to pay for the overhaul of the toxic philosophy culture.
Fight fire with fire. And if one is participating here, as she is, then one deserves to be treated in the way Skepdick finds wrong.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 11:12 am
I had the same thought. At first I thought it was uncharitable to accuse a stranger of lying about their being blind like you did. And then just to keep at it, admitting nothing as it likely slowly became more and more obvious, even to you, that the person was not lying or at least might not be. But I when I realized the higher purpose, I changed my mind.
A little collateral damage is a small price to pay for the overhaul of the toxic philosophy culture.
Fight fire with fire. And if one is participating here, as she is, then one deserves to be treated in the way Skepdick finds wrong.
Why are you lying you uncharitable twat? I admitted my error in this response.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 9:36 am
⠕⠅⠂⠀⠊⠀⠃⠑⠇⠊⠑⠧⠑⠀⠽⠕⠥⠲⠀⠺⠑⠀⠉⠁⠝⠀⠅⠑⠑⠏⠀⠙⠕⠊⠝⠛⠀⠞⠓⠊⠎⠀⠙⠊⠗⠑⠉⠞⠇⠽⠀⠊⠝⠀⠃⠗⠁⠊⠇⠇⠑⠀⠊⠋⠀⠊⠞⠀⠍⠁⠅⠑⠎⠀⠽⠕⠥⠗⠀⠇⠊⠋⠑⠀⠑⠁⠎⠊⠑⠗⠲
I even took the effort to reduce friction in communication by adopting their symbolisms. And then I went onto figure out the limits of the screen reader; so that I can make sure I don't use encodings that will go beyond its abilities which would certainly contribute to misscommunication.
NOT BELIEVING NOR ASSUMING that you ALREADY KNOW some 'thing'; and above in relation to just looking at or from one limited or particular 'thing' or perspective and NOT from a just Truly UNLIMITED, or OPEN, perspective.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:17 pm
2. What makes you say I am not "open"?
you were looking from an ALREADY PRESUMED position.
I'm not a mind reader. I'm not a blank slate. And I can only perceive as I perceive. And posing specific questions to others is how I learn what others think or believe. Others are free to respond to those questions as they see fit--or not at all if that's their choice. What more do you want from me that I'm able to comply with?