Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
I actually don't recognise the concept of public. To do so is detrimental to mental well-being
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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
Consider substituting “society” for “public” or “general population”.
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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”.
-
- Posts: 12634
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
'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
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
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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
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.
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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
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.
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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.
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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.
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?
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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
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.
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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".
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".
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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".
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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?
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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?
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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?
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?
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?