Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

trokanmariel
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by trokanmariel » 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

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by commonsense » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:02 pm

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’ve heard that there are medications that can restore mental well-being.
Consider substituting “society” for “public” or “general population”.

trokanmariel
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by trokanmariel » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:09 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:02 pm
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’ve heard that there are medications that can restore mental well-being.
Consider substituting “society” for “public” or “general population”.
I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magic

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:10 am

'Philosophy' is a very loose term but I believe it has a substance to it which is difficult to be nailed by most.

Why 'Philosophy' is view with disdained is because the term 'philosophy' is currently monopolized by its confined relation to 'Academic Philosophy' which is the bastardization of the general term philosophy and operating in a very incestuous mode.
Currently if anyone do not subscribe to the any to the recognized academic institution of philosophy, they are an outsider and thus not doing 'philosophy'.

In addition philosophy in the modern day focus too much on theory [incestuous peer-reviewed papers] but not on the applied and practical aspects of philosophy-proper.

Note this point where I linked Philosophy-proper to a primal instinct that is critical for survival and preservation of the human species and others.
viewtopic.php?p=377910#p377910

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:14 am

trokanmariel wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:09 pm
I try to avoid categorization, unless for the purpose of magic
Be sure to categorize where "you" stop and where "others" start.

That's not for the "purpose of magic". It is for the purposes of not stepping on other people's toes.

If you step on MY toes pretending like they are YOUR toes, I will probably get upset.
And if you keep pretending like my categorization is 'not real' then I will stop pretending like there is a line between the end of my fist and the beginning of your nose.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by -1- » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:31 am

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?

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.

trokanmariel
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by trokanmariel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:00 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:31 am
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?

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.
I refuse to call people squatters or deserters, or immigrants, because all people are individuals

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by -1- » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:09 pm

trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:00 pm
-1- wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:31 am
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?

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.
I refuse to call people squatters or deserters, or immigrants, because all people are individuals
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?

If you have a different name for them, other than deserters, squatters or immigrants, what are the names you use?

If you call them citizens, when they are immigrants, and when you call them soldiers, when they are avoiding military service, and if you call them landlords when they live in an abandoned building, are you actually communicating the right thing to your conversation partners?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:09 pm

trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:00 pm
I refuse to call people squatters or deserters, or immigrants, because all people are individuals
You fail to draw a distinction between ontology and behaviorism.

The words squatter, deserter and immigrants are adjectives, not nouns.

Squatter is an individual who squats.
Deserter is an individual who deserts.
Immigrant is an individual who immigrates.

The words squat, desert and immigrate are verbs.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by -1- » 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
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by trokanmariel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:42 pm

-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".
I believe that it's wrong to call people immigrants or citizens, when people are created by planets

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:26 pm

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

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?

trokanmariel
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by trokanmariel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:28 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:26 pm
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

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?
People can speak. Planets can't

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:37 pm

trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:28 pm
People can speak. Planets can't
Why 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?

trokanmariel
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Post by trokanmariel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:51 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:37 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:28 pm
People can speak. Planets can't
Why 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?
Parrots don't use money, or create institutions and militaries

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: seeds and 12 guests