Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:33 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:51 am I am not sure why two or more people having a debate would not all have the goal of reaching agreement via rational logical reason and deduction, such that if they were all of different opinions prior to the debate, surely their goal as individuals would be to convince the others to agree with their own?

So, for example, someone might only have in mind to share their different point of view.

Or maybe they only have in mind for the other person to be able to understand something they don't clearly understand; but there's no thought of having the other person agree (agreement isn't the same thing as and isn't implied by understanding).

Agreed! Good examples. A person might want to introduce some new insight or consideration that they think is worthy of notice, yet that person may not be fixed on any particular end result by doing so, rather, they are open to seeing what further unfolds.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:34 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:33 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:51 am I am not sure why two or more people having a debate would not all have the goal of reaching agreement via rational logical reason and deduction, such that if they were all of different opinions prior to the debate, surely their goal as individuals would be to convince the others to agree with their own?

So, for example, someone might only have in mind to share their different point of view.

Or maybe they only have in mind for the other person to be able to understand something they don't clearly understand; but there's no thought of having the other person agree (agreement isn't the same thing as and isn't implied by understanding).

Agreed! Good examples. A person might want to introduce some new insight or consideration that they think is worthy of notice, yet that person may not be fixed on any particular end result by doing so, rather, they are open to seeing what further unfolds.

So to you both, having a general chit-chat with people sharing insight is the ultimate point of philosophy!? Indeed, LW note the thread title AND the context that I stated to which TP responded (above TPs response)..

OP title:--- What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

OK - So, sure - have some bloke on the side, perhaps, an expert in a field (LW - that means a particular area of expertise, astrophysics for example - not somebody literally standing in a field), someone that is basically a database for the others that are actually having a PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE and indeed can provide insight to those in the debate, heck, why not have an AI, or some nerd sat on a computer that can lookup WIKI stuff as they request!

So.

You are both still seeing the ultimate point of philosophy, in case I presented above - a philosophical debate - as a just a chat offering insight to each other! It beggars belief!!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:16 pm So to you both, having a general chit-chat with people sharing insight is the ultimate point of philosophy!?

Atto... I've said many times that I think the purpose of philosophy is to question what we think we know. Do you think this thread is the first time the question has been asked and addressed? Do we all have to start over discussing everything again in a way that suits you? Fuck you. There are many ways of looking at philosophy and talking about it. Your apparent lack of making sense of anything unless you can turn it into some of your beloved psycho babble... is your own funked out trip that has very little to do with truth or reality or value for anyone but you, it seems. Your wacked-out nonsense is actually the most absurd claim of philosophy I've seen: you're just making up crazy-ass shit and pretending it's profound.

Apparently, what amounts to a pile of drivelling ad hominems is how to address a Philosphical debate,..according to you.

RE That this topic is a repetitive one upon this forum, please actually READ the OP regarding an angle that, in the years I've been on PHN, I don't think has been addressed.

Next time you jump in a thread to state, I agree, to someone debating with ME, please actually comprehend what you are agreeing to contextually. Cos, u **** up everytime.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:01 am Atto... I've said many times that I think the purpose of philosophy is to question what we think we know...There are many ways of looking at philosophy and talking about it.

The easiest way to spot a religion: find the unquestionable tennets. Is there even such a thing as "Philosophy"?

Is rejecting the existence of Philosophy a philosophy or a non-Philosophy?

.

Depending on what school of Philosophy one follows, the ultimate aim would be different. For instance in analytic philosophy, the ultimate aim is to analyse linguistic texts, and look for any ambiguity, and come to clearer meanings of the texts?

In Phenomenology, describe the world, life and art in phenomenological methods, and come to the phenomenological truths? etc.

Zarathustra wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:37 am Depending on what school of Philosophy one follows, the ultimate aim would be different. For instance in analytic philosophy, the ultimate aim is to analyse linguistic texts, and look for any ambiguity, and come to clearer meanings of the texts?

In Phenomenology, describe the world, life and art in phenomenological methods, and come to the phenomenological truths? etc.

............ah, finally I might find love in logic.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:54 am
............ah, finally I might find love in logic.

I think Logic is cool too. It detects fallacies in the arguments.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:12 pm Surely, it must be to take out any subjective abstraction that we perceive and attempt to reduce that subjective perception of reality, all the way down to a finite binary conclusion..., or am I missing the mark?

Your meaning is correct, and of course hinges on the keyword, "attempt."

To philosophize is to begin anywhere in the mind, and go anywhere with the mind *.
Philosophy is a dualistic enterprise.
This is why philosophy is a thing that can touch every thing, but it is not all.

To philosophize is not to ask questions.
To philosophize is to answer questions.

Those answers are then squabbled over by the inspectors.


* To understand intellectually it must be kept in mind that every thing doesn't include "nothing," for nothing requires no mind (no thought), and the thinginess of mind is arguably a physical property so subtle as to be only detectable by a biological brain, and as such has certain physical properties such as switching on, and off.