True, I think philosophy should at least be understandable by a mind endowed with intelligence and a degree of willingness.
Some people are unfortunately not interested; others, perhaps a little gormless.
Should philosophy be easy to understand?
- Thread starter Ren
- Start date
True, I think philosophy should at least be understandable by a mind endowed with intelligence and a degree of willingness.
Some people are unfortunately not interested; others, perhaps a little gormless.
D
Deleted member 16771
This is purely a stream of consciousness with no through-line. I'm fascinated to tell you the truth, because what's going on here is that each clause makes sense to its neighbours... and that is the limit of its coherence.
This is statement and not an argument, you are welcome to try to again.
Edit: And why not back up my counter statement with some met, a stream of consciousness is more in the form of, "This is rather bleak, perhaps even black, so is my laptop and forum thread, so it forms a coherent streatm of thoughts."
What you are claiming to be fascinating to inform me what concerns the form, content and structure of the previous post is actually not a cogent summasation of my argument covering several paragraphs and phrases that includes ANALOGIES that does indeed create a continous stream and red thread through the general attitude in the dialogue that is a PART of.
You had an argument to justify your statement you said?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16771
Right, so now you can follow suit to my extended justification proving your statement wrong with an argument if you wish.
Highly encourage dealing with the argument and text before proposing there is a prblem with my thoughts, awareness or relevance in the current context before actually addressing the text and arguments.
You can start by analysing and showing the problems, as I'm sure there is room for improvement that may be interest after demonstration of curiosity and interest.
This is called an argument, not a mere statement or empty postulations.
Not that it's useless to share, but there needs to be more than a series of statements that doesn't support each other.
Frustrating because a strong and highly valid rebuttal here is that your initial reponse to me was incoherent and cannot be identified as a coherent part of this dialogue, but rather an empty statement.
This is also a logically cogent argument that is defendable from my statement concerning what a streatm of consciousness may imply. And you responded to an argument and response to the difficulty of explaining concepts that start by arguing definitions with analogies that lead to concepts and the the role of emotions in personal opinions.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16771
I noticed that the structure of your post was not anchored with a central argument.
My curiosity was piqued not by what you were trying to say, therefore, but the way you process and articulate ideas.
Maybe I replied to quickly in the previous post, but what if it started with:
"Concepts can be impossible to explain, and one can circle around for quite a whiole, you know better if it's worth it if you start with strong defintions and discuss them."
D
Deleted member 16771
You seemed to go off on a wild tangent, that's all, and I found it difficult to see the relevance of e.g. Trump to that point.
I don't know that philsophical concepts can always be clearly defined. Maybe they can. To me philosophy is expansive and something to build on. Perhaps starting small with analogies and metaphors will help people.
As to everything about Trump... I don't know. I'm in Canada so I only have so much to say on that.
Gravity, climate and simple technology that works as a basis for an economy. There are more peace under Trump, perhaps only because he doesn't listen to his own government?
I don't know.... Facts are facts, there is less conflict under Trump the last few years, rather than ISIS stories constantly, and how it's getting worse. It's about him offending China or some such.
Wish he had a notable litterary persona as a friend to write and speak for him... And he is a dick, but that is better than a nice guy everything falls apart around. Or some war mongering fool with a need to abuse power on behalf of a nation, like killing people for shooting down an unmanned drone.
So gravity and Coal power plants -- as long as you can burn things to power them, like for example petroleum based plastics, they have a use!
People with solar panels on the roof may still burn wood for heat during winter, could they upgrade the chimney to harvest the thermal energy?
Steam tecnology is pretty awesome, and will never go away.
Many, "good news everyone, we are shutting down dirty coal plants" news stories in the west.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
That is the reality however, and may never change, where alternative fuel to coal is the thing needed.
Like wood and stuff, or upgrading and changing to allow other fuel sources, like the more moderne mixed fuel power plants.
Drag that slide to the future and at least be happy about Africa getting an economic boost in addition to Asia due to these practices.
D
Deleted member 16771
See this is what I mean... what the fuck has all of that got to do with the relationship between concepts and reality?
Explain me, dude!
See this is what I mean... what the fuck has all of that got to do with the relationship between concepts and reality?
Explain me, dude!
Strong analogy dude, feels like shit. Energy and gravity is pretty basic and good minimal starting point.
While going circles around and back and forth, there are definitions for good and bad for climate.
A person being a douchebag while there still be good consequences in a wider context.
But mostly that we are dealing with climate like someone falling of a bridge and regretting his actions something terrible.
Pull that slide back and forth and weep, west is shutting down coal.
The thing is however that coal plants can run on wood -- almost anything that burn.
Wood is actually better than some sources of coal....
Energy intensive industries have a market, and there is demand, we are also on a shared planet.
So the stuff gets built elsewhere, in addition, carbon is used for making steel, so either fossil coal or wood coal.... Solar panels are made with a carbothermic reaction that requires coal -- it's not just cheap energy.
The good intentions and brights ideas of media and opinionated movements aren't working, and the world leaders that plays along aren't showing honour and conscience required for such an office -- its populism. Merkel is doing two things that are good, shutting down ancient coal plants using coal 2-4 times worse than what can be bought on the global market, and getting rid of nuclear. She also has a Ph.D in physics on the study of hot gasses ( yes, lol! ), shutting down coal plants isn't a universal solution and a good example. Neither is shutting down steel plants in the UK and shipping it from China that subsidises steel heavily.
Trees, we need trees! (ok, i say that too often....)
Here is why Steam will never go away:
Requriing heating water to around 400 - 600 degrees depending.
Turbines being availabke from 10 kW to 1900 MW.
Many places you can float timber down a river for a reliable supply that won't break.
Industrial turbines go from 2 MW to 250 MW, and that's 24/7.
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/energy/power-generation/steam-turbines.html
Why you may ask? Isn't steam boring? Water expands by a factor of 1600 to steam. And water is incompressible, and can safely be done supercritical (dry steam etc).
Last edited:
That qualifies as a coherent stream of associations that builds around and supports a conceptualisation of the climate problem with respect to supporting the basis of the world economy -- where the roles of cartels starts getting interesting in combination with forestry.
You aren't going to have any economy with coal/carbon that supports energy intensive industries, steel production and recycling along with furnances that can do crystal growth required for silica wafers and other things.
We never really became a nuclear or quantum economy outside of the tech sector, it's been steam all along.
Analogies and concepts with sturdie prisons to prevent consciousness from drifting elsewhere can be rough! Climate is planetary and global, not a part of the ecosystem like CO2, the stuff that makes tree grow out of thin air.
Only thing that can change things really fast, is changing the foundation for steam technology. Where "nuclear" is just another means of heating water, and wood is about half as good as fossil coal.
You aren't going to have any economy with coal/carbon that supports energy intensive industries, steel production and recycling along with furnances that can do crystal growth required for silica wafers and other things.
We never really became a nuclear or quantum economy outside of the tech sector, it's been steam all along.
Analogies and concepts with sturdie prisons to prevent consciousness from drifting elsewhere can be rough! Climate is planetary and global, not a part of the ecosystem like CO2, the stuff that makes tree grow out of thin air.
Only thing that can change things really fast, is changing the foundation for steam technology. Where "nuclear" is just another means of heating water, and wood is about half as good as fossil coal.
Last edited:
The Intelligible are things that can only be understood/imagined, but not observed. It's that simple. This is where the "imaginary plane" in complex mathematics gets its name from.
I assume that you have studied Plato's Divided Line?
The quote from Martin Heidegger, is the same line of thinking that modern quantum quacks have used to dismiss the Aether - which is insanity (explanation cannot be done on this thread).
Philosophy (natural philosophy as it used to be called), is the root of all the sciences and mathematics, which Plato, Pythagoras, and many other greek philosophers used to derive their works.
Philosophy is observation of the physical/opinion to deduce the things of the intelligible - for "as above, so below", and "Thy will be done on Earth as it is also done in Heaven".
Philosophy is best consumed when you have something of personal interest that you are trying to figure out. By nature, the understanding comes from necessity.
Lol yeah, it's basic enough for anyone interested in ontology I guess, and though I don't agree with the Divided Line, it's a difficult view to avoid even when one is developing arguments against it.
The divided line is extremely important. It is the proof of balance, symmetry, and harmony.
There is nothing to disagree with. It is a mathematical truth. It shares its importance with the Golden Ratio [2cos(36)], which is also the Pythagorean proportion represented in their symbol of the pentagram - which is Hygea. This ratio is also the root of quadratics that express the relationships of every known physical phenomena.
It is mathematically and philosophically a real thing. It is the most important connection of why philosophy must be in accord with physics. Everything in physics is dependant on proportionality - for, the observable (that of opinion) things in the natural world can only be quantified by comparison to something else, which is it's proportion.
I am surprised that you have not rendered this understanding. It is quite important.
D
Deleted member 16771
If you consider that there is "nothing to disagree with", you are already proving that you are not a philosopher.
And no, metaphysical platonism is not a mathematical truth, whatever that means. You seem surprisingly ignorant of the fact that the analogy of the Divided Line and its metaphysical implications has been an immensely broad, heated and debated topic for literally millennia. Consider perhaps starting with some readings on nominalism.
It was not meant to be mean. Forgive my use of expression.
Whutthehek?
Where are all these meanies coming from, all of a sudden?
Projection is the bane of the internet.
D