Should philosophy be easy to understand?

[Ifur]

Wow, lol. Is your life directed by Wes Anderson or something?

LOL! Quite possible, met one of the life guards at the beach in Jamaica were i practiced swimming almost every day in a mall nearby.
So started talking about the small things and big things in life, he wasn't so sure about this whole dinosaur thing as it didn't fit with the bible and such.
He did however agree there was meaning and purpose into meeting people so that one touch at a personal level.

Have gathered a few of these over the years, the weirdest was a guy in a south park t-shirt sending over a bartender with a keg of beer while I was watching a sunset.
Asked why and he said I looked interesting and wanted a conversation, said he was a bartender at a resort with a photographic memory, so he could remember every drink and guest he had served.
That he tended to ask guests if they came back if they wanted the same as last year.

 

[Disguised]

Yes

 

[Ren]

By engaging with others in philosophical dialogue without being a literary prick about it.
You can get wisdom out of many people, and may seem to require a lowering of expectations of perception of those intellectually interested.

I asked a guy that became a friend for useful insight or wisdom.
So I'm not as laid back as you I said, and you make everyone around you more at ease.
This guy was a skateboard instructor that dabbled a bit with music.

After some contemplation on his part on what to say to be of help.
He says one should usually, but not always, compliment the person on the item he or her keeps touching.

Within this sentence and dialogue, there are mental states, unconscious behaviour and ethics.
Should he think more highly of this and his perception and be more equipped to discuss these things?

Yeah, philosophy should be more common.

I agree with this. Do you also read philosophy or do you mostly like to discuss it through dialogue?

 

[Ren]

Yes

Ever since starting this thread, I have oscillated between yes and no, but these days I am more firmly on the side of "yes" than ever.

Unless one is trying to express things that can perhaps only be expressed through metaphor.

 

[dragulagu]

 

[sassafras]

The way I see it, ideas are only powerful when thoroughly understood. The better you understand an idea, the more concisely you can communicate it.

 

[Ren]

The way I see it, ideas are only powerful when thoroughly understood. The better you understand an idea, the more concisely you can communicate it.

This is very true. I think some ideas can genuinely be very complex, but they must be formulated in such a way that if one makes the effort, one can understand them at the highest level of resolution.

Often ideas that seem very complex are just convoluted and only reveal that they haven't been completely worked out yet by their author.

 

[Ifur]

I agree with this. Do you also read philosophy or do you mostly like to discuss it through dialogue?

This, started with reading Nietzsche and other things during teens, and reading was less fun than engaging the text while trying to understand the thoughts and patterns described.
And I think perhaps that many deal with nuances and interesting things too quickly rather than the big classic that anchor things a bit more.
Heidegger (what is called thinking? yum!), together with Thomas Nagel What is it like to be a bat, I think should be introduction prior to Daniel Dennett and Qualia etc.
http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/nagel-what-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat/

This is amazing for anyone that want's to brush off any bold statements about digital machines and technology that replicate nature, something history of science and technology shows that it's losing contest.
And allows a broad normative definition and basis that doesn't put limits on thoughts and imagintion, bur rather contrary with the language and understanding.

Which makes this article, the book what is called thinking, and Wittgenstein a very good and minimal start to "so what's up with 20th century thought".

And one can then also easily argue man as an organic, natural and analogue being working on much of the same information processing generally the case in nature, and this whole spiritual aspect of the planet as a self regulation system and Gaia etc. In which case one has a phenomenological basis to discuss Jung and subconscious withhout being mystical or occult.

Erkennen, transcendental and what it means and implies to explain something that is not limiting as a personal expression of language. So yes, dialogue and not the right person to discuss a larger body surrounding a topic that centres around the literature and academic body -- where having continous academic exercises as an important stimulation.

 

[dragulagu]

Which makes this article, the book what is called thinking, and Wittgenstein a very good and minimal start to "so what's up with 20th century thought".

Wittgenstein seems to be pretty popular here in general, kind of curious.

In regards to the thread, got this one from a recent reddit thread, have not yet read up on it but it seems to be interesting addition in lieu of the replies here:
https://aeon.co/ideas/is-great-philosophy-by-its-nature-difficult-and-obscure

 

[Ren]

Wittgenstein seems to be pretty popular here in general, kind of curious.

In regards to the thread, got this one from a recent reddit thread, have not yet read up on it but it seems to be interesting addition in lieu of the replies here:
https://aeon.co/ideas/is-great-philosophy-by-its-nature-difficult-and-obscure

Thanks for the link! I'll check it out later.

I think Wittgenstein is popular as much due to his personality as to his body of work. Nevertheless, in my estimate he is one of the most important philosophers since Kant.

I created a thread on "Famous INFJ Personalities" section dedicated to Wittgenstein if you're curious. If you're interested in exploring his actual works I can always give some pointers, I've read almost everything by him.

 

[Ifur]

Wittgenstein seems to be pretty popular here in general, kind of curious.

In regards to the thread, got this one from a recent reddit thread, have not yet read up on it but it seems to be interesting addition in lieu of the replies here:
https://aeon.co/ideas/is-great-philosophy-by-its-nature-difficult-and-obscure

I will read the link later, but this the problem; preldue and context.

So if one considers the literary burden to be less during Wittgenstein's time than Descartes.
He'd be burned for not saying that God was all that is the case.
Worlds lends itself to a personal orientation that God may have had at some point in time.
In which case we can discuss if the term relates more to theory of mind than physics.

Now, Heidegger's what it's called thinking is a power demonstration in redefinig concepts and keeping track of what one is trying to convey.
His more well known work Being and Time does much of the same, but is not pressed into your face with more brute force trauma that makes you laugh. (hope this doesn't spoil it, but try and keep track of his question through the book and expect where it is going).

In either case, Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Heidegger's What Is Called Thinking, with Thomas Nagel What is it like to be a bat? Is my shortlist for 20th century philosophy. So Thomas Nagel's Last Word is also good. But not as pungent as an article for somone that isn't dead -- he could have won more awards.

Based on summary I think I wouldn't disagree too much with his actual last book either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

Not that anyone is asking, but yes; as significant thinkers, I'll put Nagel up there with Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Albeit Focault may be a better read between them.

And haha! This being infjs!

Atheism
In his work Mind and Cosmos, Nagel notes that he is an atheist, writing, "I lack the sensus divinitatis that enables—indeed compels—so many people to see in the world the expression of divine purpose as naturally as they see in a smiling face the expression of human feeling."[13]

In which case some may want to argue seeing god in people, as from the image of....
And what did I say about Wittgenstein and Descartes?

I like Nagel alot!

 

[Ren]

He'd be burned for not saying that God was all that is the case.

I think you're right that Descartes might have been pressured to talk about God somehow, but he also did for eminently metaphysical reasons. Invoking God allows Descartes to account for the interactionism of mind and body. Since Wittgenstein is not a dualist in the Cartesian sense, he has not even any conceptual need of God.

Now, Heidegger's what it's called thinking is a power demonstration in redefinig concepts and keeping track of what one is trying to convey.
His more well known work Being and Time does much of the same, but is not pressed into your face with more brute force trauma that makes you laugh. (hope this doesn't spoil it, but try and keep track of his question through the book and expect where it is going).

I think this is a great way to capture the importance of Heidegger's work. He is engaged in a fundamental task to think differently. To appreciate Being and Time and his other works requires trying to apprehend the kind of frame of mind he which he himself was when he set about developing these works. To an extent I think the situation is the same with Wittgenstein, especially to get to a profound understanding of the Tractatus.

Not that anyone is asking, but yes; as significant thinkers, I'll put Nagel up there with Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Albeit Foucault may be a better read between them.

These, Sir, are very fine choices I used to be mad into Foucault but these days I would hold Wittgenstein and Heidegger in higher esteem.

 

[Ifur]

Wittgenstein seems to be pretty popular here in general, kind of curious.

In regards to the thread, got this one from a recent reddit thread, have not yet read up on it but it seems to be interesting addition in lieu of the replies here:
https://aeon.co/ideas/is-great-philosophy-by-its-nature-difficult-and-obscure

Well, so for example when reading Greek philosophy.
Eroticicism between an older man and a younger man was socially and culturally acceptable within mento and aprentice relationship.
Intercourse was however frowned upon, and it was customary to have such a relationship before getting a wife or a family of ones own.

This also means there are innuendo about appealing and attractive younger men, where a description like this in relation to poetry reading for example.
Can imply both intelectual desire on the young man's behalf, and that it would be positive for social standing.

Trying to deduce greek culture without taking realities into account can be impossible indeed, and makes many things obscure for certain.

It starts getting difficult already with Nietzsche without combining it with history and context.

 

[Pin]

@Ren

Should I read Baudrillard? I like what he has to say about architecture.

 

[dragulagu]

I will read the link later, but this the problem; preldue and context.

So if one considers the literary burden to be less during Wittgenstein's time than Descartes.
He'd be burned for not saying that God was all that is the case.
Worlds lends itself to a personal orientation that God may have had at some point in time.
In which case we can discuss if the term relates more to theory of mind than physics.

Now, Heidegger's what it's called thinking is a power demonstration in redefinig concepts and keeping track of what one is trying to convey.
His more well known work Being and Time does much of the same, but is not pressed into your face with more brute force trauma that makes you laugh. (hope this doesn't spoil it, but try and keep track of his question through the book and expect where it is going).

In either case, Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Heidegger's What Is Called Thinking, with Thomas Nagel What is it like to be a bat? Is my shortlist for 20th century philosophy. So Thomas Nagel's Last Word is also good. But not as pungent as an article for somone that isn't dead -- he could have won more awards.

Based on summary I think I wouldn't disagree too much with his actual last book either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

Not that anyone is asking, but yes; as significant thinkers, I'll put Nagel up there with Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Albeit Focault may be a better read between them.

And haha! This being infjs!



In which case some may want to argue seeing god in people, as from the image of....
And what did I say about Wittgenstein and Descartes?

I like Nagel alot!

Well, so for example when reading Greek philosophy.
Eroticicism between an older man and a younger man was socially and culturally acceptable within mento and aprentice relationship.
Intercourse was however frowned upon, and it was customary to have such a relationship before getting a wife or a family of ones own.

This also means there are innuendo about appealing and attractive younger men, where a description like this in relation to poetry reading for example.
Can imply both intelectual desire on the young man's behalf, and that it would be positive for social standing.

Trying to deduce greek culture without taking realities into account can be impossible indeed, and makes many things obscure for certain.

It starts getting difficult already with Nietzsche without combining it with history and context.

It indeed does, history and context are very important!
I got a damn lot of reading/catching up to do to follow the train of thought (still have to catch up on Zarahustrianism).

 

[Ren]

@Ren

Should I read Baudrillard? I like what he has to say about architecture.

Some of his stuff is thought-provoking, but I don't consider him to be very profound. That said, he has written some good essays.

I would perhaps favor individual essays over whole books. I find that he struggles with book-length works. What have you been reading by him?

 

[Pin]

Some of his stuff is thought-provoking, but I don't consider him to be very profound. That said, he has written some good essays.

I would perhaps favor individual essays over whole books. I find that he struggles with book-length works. What have you been reading by him?

I saw him referenced in a film analysis. Didn't he think that architectural style reflects a society's values?

 

[Korg]

I'm with Voltaire:

"I have consumed about forty years of my pilgrimage in two or three corners of the world, seeking the philosopher's stone called truth. I have consulted all the adepts of antiquity, Epicurus and Augustine, Plato and Malebranche, and I still remain in ignorance. In all the crucibles of philosophers,there are perhaps two or three ounces of gold, but all the rest is caput moyuum, insipid mire, from which nothing can be extracted."

 

[SpecialEdition]

"Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." Martin Heidegger

This a thorny question to which I don't have the answer, but I sometimes wonder. On the one hand, of course I want to say: "Yes, philosophy should be easy to understand. Otherwise, what's the point? It's just obscurantism." On the other hand, with technical language comes the ability to say more things in fewer words, and to gain in precision. The thing is, sometimes technical language is not necessary; and other times it can be technical in a way that is not inaccessible.

So I'm wondering what you think, guys. What is your stance on philosophy and intelligibility? _q:

You can ELI5 to some people but that still doesn't mean they're going to get it.

You can simplify concepts as much as possible but not everyone is going to understand. Maybe they don't want to.

 

[Ifur]

You can ELI5 to some people but that still doesn't mean they're going to get it.

You can simplify concepts as much as possible but not everyone is going to understand. Maybe they don't want to.

Almost as if there are nobody home to deal with the relationship between thoughts and reality.
Rality as in the logically unavoidable can be taught just like can gravity can be felt.
Beat the point enough times until hurts, and at least behaviou will stop being illogical.

I'm working on it!

Maybe just start with explaining that definitions have defining lines that creates a distinction between true and false, the sharper that is the more meaningful the concept can be. If the meaning behind a definiton cannot be explained, it's time to walk away with the realisation there is no hope for explaining a concept.

Start with definitions, as concepts don't require bounds, limits or anything that to turn to for true or false. It can be -- so you know the feeling of wishing that gravity doesn't apply just for this particular and specific situation and context while surrending to the laws of nature and causality of the situation as you fall to the ground? This is what the world currently think about climate challenge, perhaps physical limits can be excused to make it easier to get out of this minor mistake and omission of ours.
With a stronger survival instinct you may scream out "fuck" rather than, but it still changes nothing as you surrender to the inevitable.

This can conceptually be contrasted with what is going on in the USA. Now Trump was recently the first president to ever cross the border between South and North Korea. This alone, not to mention what other conflicts that have become less during his presidency makes him the greatest President of USA for global peace of all time, just with Korea -- above and beyound anything that Regan ever did during his presidency. Now he may not represent any sort of dream situation give many of the things he says. On the other hand he has included his own family, shown trust in them and included them -- this alone shows that he trusts, believes and wants better for the next generation. This also means it doesn't feel all that bad, better this and him than some other lunatic with gravity defying ideas. Since Clinton it went from bad to worse whe it comes to PHYSICAL and REAL consequences from the leadership and office, like FUCKING YEMEN.

Wind mills and solar panels does zero diffence against the coming climate crisis, nothing.
It forestry, and that is it; actually doesn't matter if its economicaly or not, it has the biggest impact on climate in time, energy and work. And the funny thing is that Trump is supported by Coal, and doesn't like that Asia is investing in coal and are already at 70% due to energy securty, reliability, storage costs and a whole range of things that make it great at massive global scales. What can you burn in a coal plant? Wood, furniture, plasic carbage, cow dung, and the list goes on -- It's steam technology that just requires heat for crying out loud.