You are missing the context. I'm being accidentally trolled and fooling around,

Was Helena Blavatsky a philosopher? What about Aleister Crowley? What about other kinds of thinking, e.g. religious, or New Age? Was Ram Dass a philosopher? The Dalai Lama? John Lennon?

If you wish, you can claim most anyone of these individuals or others who "think great thoughts" are/were philosophers. — Ciceronianus

Well I could offer up an opinion, but I don't think individuals legislate meaning any more than they can decide what five bucks is worth, and for similar reasons. 'Philosopher' is a token that bounces around in the world with other tokens, out there with telescopes and fire hydrants.

But no I'm not inclined to let everyone in.

Why the fear of magical thinking? Can you prove that magical thinking is bad? — jas0n

Wouldn't be more apt to ask whether magical thinking is philosophy?

Was Helena Blavatsky a philosopher? What about Aleister Crowley? What about other kinds of thinking, e.g. religious, or New Age? Was Ram Dass a philosopher? The Dalai Lama? John Lennon?

If you wish, you can claim most anyone of these individuals or others who "think great thoughts" are/were philosophers.

Wouldn't be more apt to ask whether magical thinking is philosophy? — Ciceronianus

I don't think so. I'm with Witt & Gadamer on this. We are loaded with prejudices, AKA culture. So we need them and yet they are in our way. Metaphors, pictures, myths. Is there a system without some unjustified master concept, some kind of grand narrative that's true for no reason? Look for an image of their hero, their ego ideal, their proposed what-we-should-all-be. I've never met/read anyone, including myself, without holes in their story, things they take for granted without noticing it, a roleplay of some version of the hero.

unfortunatelly people try to address their frustration by going over those limitations. — Nickolasgaspar

Yeah, true enough. Funny thing about human reason, the ability to come up with fantastic stuff on the one hand, then turn right around and confuse itself on the other. Nature of the beast. Can only be guarded against, but never eliminated.
————

All three of which are antecedent to knowledge, or, which is the same thing, knowledge presupposes all three of those strictly human a priori capacities.
— Mww
-Obviously the dude who stated that has never studied other animals. — Nickolasgaspar

Why would anyone study other animals when investigating strictly human conditions? Who gives a shit that dolphins appear to surf, when such appearance is a mere anthropomorphism anyway? Crows use tools? Big deal. No crow ever got himself to the moon.

Apple, meet orange.
————

are you aware of a Non real world where we can not exercise them???? — Nickolasgaspar

Yep. So are you. And not so much can not, but simply don’t. But we probably have differing ideas regarding what it means to be real.
————

I don't know why this is so difficult for you...you literally described the process. — Nickolasgaspar

C’mon, man. If I literally described the process, how could it have been so difficult for me? But I didn’t describe anything; I just asked a question, which wasn’t answered.
————

you fail to practice when a concept isn't founded on knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar

Not sure what that means. Fail to practice? All that aside, a concept only arises in relation to what we don’t know, as a representation of it. You are confounding the inception of a particular from a general. It is equivalent to saying the conception of a thing arises because we know it isn’t that, and it isn’t that, and it isn’t that, ad infinitum, which is absurd.

Our ability to reproduce a concept plays no role to its validity lol. — Nickolasgaspar

You laugh, but also think we have an ability that reproduces concepts. Why in the world would we need to reproduce a concept? Where did the original go? Produce, of course; reproduce.....nahhhh, I don’t think so. And the production IS the validity, otherwise there is no logical relation upon which a judgement could ensue. And don’t mistake validity for truth, for only experience can prove the truth of a judgement, and even that only contingently. It’s how we know we got something wrong if experience shows a false judgement. You know....like....lightning, a perfectly valid conception that still remains, doesn’t really come from angry gods despite the judgement of the time that it did.

A central metaphysical idea, intuition, sufficient to explain why no one has to reproduce concepts.

We could do this all day, but I got post-winter lawn duty. Not high on my list of pleasures, but duty nonetheless.

I don't think so. I'm with Witt & Gadamer on this. We are loaded with prejudices, AKA culture. So we need them and yet they are in our way. Metaphors, pictures, myths. Is there a system without some unjustified master concept, some kind of grand narrative that's true for no reason? Look for an image of their hero, their ego ideal, their proposed what-we-should-all-be. I've never met/read anyone, including myself, without holes in their story, things they take for granted without noticing it, a roleplay of some version of the hero. — jas0n

Why are they in our way? How do we know they are i.our way except when we are ready to replace them? Aren’t these prejudices what Nietzsche called value systems? Heidegger says “ The world with which we are concerned and being-in itself are both interpreted within the parameters of a particular framework of intelligibility.”
Shouldn’t we hold onto the framework until it begins to fail us? It’s not as if there will be no warning signs. Thats what our emotions are for. Our anger, anxiety and confusion express in vivid colors our ability to function effectively within a crumbling frame of intelligibility.

Unless of course you believe we are just ‘conditioned’ to interpret events via a certain framing narrative. In that case our most deeply held beliefs would be arbitrary, unjustified, true for no reason. But don’t truth and justification follow upon pragmatic usefulness? Isn’t there a kind of reasonableness within pragmatic relevance, or is relevance itself the mere product of arbitrary conditioning?

I utterly reject epistemology for strictly logical and philosophical reasons which I am not prepared to divulge at this time. — jas0n

ok you admit you are a pseudo philosopher...that's good to know.

We are loaded with prejudices, AKA culture. So we need them and yet they are in our way. Metaphors, pictures, myths. Is there a system without some unjustified master concept, some kind of grand narrative that's true for no reason? Look for an image of their hero, their ego ideal, their proposed what-we-should-all-be. I've never met/read anyone, including myself, without holes in their story, things they take for granted without noticing it, a roleplay of some version of the hero. — jas0n

It strikes me that there's a point when the inclination to discount any assertion or argument because we can't really know anything since we're permeated with prejudices and "culture" should serve to end discussion as well as judgment. Why bother?

Why would anyone study other animals when investigating strictly human conditions? Who gives a shit that dolphins appear to surf, when such appearance is a mere anthropomorphism anyway? Crows use tools? Big deal. No crow ever got himself to the moon. — Mww

-because..they are not strictly human"conditions". Knowledge, wisdom and reason are mental abilities shared by other animals...in a lesser degree of course. Animals do gain knowledge from previous experiences and through basic reasoning they can take wise decisions thus inform their actions accordingly!
Why would anyone study other animals?....someone who is interested in Mental properties and how they evolved...like a scientist?

Big deal. No crow ever got himself to the moon. — Mww

-This is the demarcation point about knowledge, wisdom and reason? Of course you are kidding right?
Crows can survive without destroying their ecosystem...how wise and knowledgeable is that? They can survive without air conditioning, or a can opener or 3 meals a day and supermarkets. Modern spoiled "intelligent" humans fall in depression and die by depriving superficial things !
So we should first set the standards and metrics for this one....

are you aware of a Non real world where we can not exercise them???? — Nickolasgaspar
Yep. So are you. And not so much can not, but simply don’t. But we probably have differing ideas regarding what it means to be real. — Mww

-Unfortunately for you, your ideas on "real" can not be objectively demonstrated to be true.
Believing in a non real world is not enough and it is indistinguishable from a non existent reality.
So I will need to plead the Null Hypothesis and take the given value for your reality (which is zero) and NOT assume statistical significance....until you provide data that can prove it!

This is the point where you depart from reason.

C’mon, man. If I literally described the process, how could it have been so difficult for me? But I didn’t describe anything; I just asked a question, which wasn’t answered. — Mww

- You literary described the philosophical process and how it includes knowledge ...i quote:
-"Speculative metaphysics starts with things known, and uses that to arrive at logical arguments for that which is sufficiently explanatory in keeping with internal consistency and non-contradiction."
So why are you willing to make room for special pleading on specific assumptions?

All that aside, a concept only arises in relation to what we don’t know, as a representation of it. — Mww

-fractally wrong statement. Concepts are all based on what we know mixed with some magic, this is why we have anthropomorphic gods, Nature as a thinking agent...souls that resemble our conscious abilities etc etc.

You are confounding the inception of a particular from a general. — Mww

irrelevant statements. I am pointing out that concepts are nothing more than a phenomenon plus a magical claim for its ontology. Phlogiston, miasma,orgone energy , gods are some of the examples.

It is equivalent to saying the conception of a thing arising because we know it isn’t that, and it isn’t that, and it isn’t that, ad infinitum, which is absurd — Mww

- I have answered your false assumption.
We tend to make up magical agents with exactly the same properties that are displayed by the phenomenon we are try to explain...or we project our properties to invisible agent in order to explain phenomena in nature...those are our basic practices.

You laugh, but also think we have an ability that reproduces concepts.

Why in the world would we need to reproduce a concept? — Mww

-Its a survival advantage to be able to communicate concepts. i.e."its dangerous outside". the concept of dangerous communicates essential information. Those who were able to communicate and comprehend and reproduce concepts improve the chances of survival of their population.

Where did the original go? — Mww

lol dude...you are confusing the map with the territory. Concepts are mostly abstract ideas that include real properties. take god for example. We have the ability to thing of an absolute being who is the best version of us...bla bla bla.
There is no need for an original. Do you really think that the concept of a circle originates from an absolute circle ancient people saw in their environment? of course not.
Abstract thinking and conceptualization is our A game....and our curse. This is the sole reason why I have to talk to people with ideas like yours. (and our bad heuristics).

And the production IS the validity, otherwise there is no logical relation upon which a judgement could ensue. And don’t mistake validity for truth, for only experience can prove a conception valid. It’s how we know we got something wrong if experience shows a conception invalid. You know....like....lightning doesn’t really come from angry gods even though it was a perfectly valid conception that it did. — Mww

A central metaphysical idea, intuition, sufficient to explain why no one has to reproduce concepts.
We could do this all day, but I got post-winter lawn duty. Not high on my list of pleasures, but duty nonetheless. — Mww

assumptions assumptions assumptions and bad language mode.
Can you really provide evidence for those claims...can you prove our ability to produce concepts validates the existence of "originals".
You are posting metaphysical beliefs that aren't based on knowledge. Nothing of the above is relevant to a true philosophical discussion.

the inclination to discount any assertion or argument because we can't really know anything since we're permeated with prejudices and "culture" should serve to end discussion as well as judgment. Why bother? — Ciceronianus

Ye shall know them by their windmills?

We are loaded with prejudices, AKA culture. So we need them and yet they are in our way. — jas0n

/////////////////////////////////////
To a considerable extent customs, or widespread uniformities of habit, exist because individuals face the same situation and react in like fashion. But to a larger extent customs persist because individuals form their personal habits under conditions set by prior customs. An individual usually acquires the morality as he inherits the speech of his social group.

The activities of the group are already there, and some assimilation of his own acts to their pattern is a prerequisite of a share therein, and hence of having any part in what is going on.
...
These associations are definite modes of interaction of persons with one another; that is to say they form customs, institutions. There is no problem in all history so artificial as that of how "individuals " manage to form "society."
...
All habits are demands for certain kinds of activity; and they constitute the self.... They form our effective desires and they furnish us with our working capacities. They rule our thoughts, determining which shall appear and be strong and which shall pass from light into obscurity.
...
Ideas, thoughts of ends, are not spontaneously generated. There is no immaculate conception of meanings or purposes. Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction.
...
For thinking cannot itself escape the influence of habit, any more than anything else human.
...
The medium of habit filters all the material that reaches our perception and thought.
...
The essence of habit is an acquired predisposition to ways or modes of response, not to particular acts except as, under special conditions, these express a way of behaving.
...
Every moment of reaction and protest, however, usually accepts some of the basic ideas of the position against which it rebels.
...
Habits are conditions of intellectual efficiency...They restrict its reach, they fix its boundaries. They are blinders that confine the eyes of mind to the road ahead....Outside the scope of habits, thought works gropingly, fumbling in confused uncertainty; and yet habit made complete in routine shuts in thought so effectually that it is no longer needed or possible.
...
The most skillful aptitude bumps at times into the unexpected, and so gets into trouble from which only observation and invention extricate it. Efficiency in following a beaten path has then to be converted into breaking a new road through strange lands.
...
Habit is however more than a restriction of thought. Habits become negative limits because they are first positive agencies. The more numerous our habits the wider the field of possible observation and foretelling.
...
For it is a commonplace that the more suavely efficient a habit the more unconsciously it operates.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41386/41386-h/41386-h.htm#Pg014

Shouldn’t we hold onto the framework until it begins to fail us? — Joshs

Who ever suggested otherwise? But that's that viewing it too simply. We can think of a network of beliefs/habits with some more being more crucial (risky/difficult to modify) than others. We can think of exploratory tentacles. We can apply this to a personality or to a culture. A philosopher would be one who experiments with updates of various frameworks (of the how everything hangs together variety.)

The streetcar is experienced as a transcendent object, in a way that obliterates and overrides, so to speak, the subjective features of conscious experience; its “having-to-be-overtaken-ness” does not belong to my subjective experience of the world but to the objective description of the way the world is (see also Sartre 1936a [1957: 56; 2004: 10–11]). When I run after the streetcar, my consciousness is absorbed in the relation to its intentional object, “the streetcar-having-to-be-overtaken”, and there is no trace of the “I” in such lived-experience. I do not need to be aware of my intention to take the streetcar, since the object itself appears as having-to-be-overtaken, and the subjective properties of my experience disappear in the intentional relation to the object. They are lived-through without any reference to the experiencing subject (or to the fact that this experience has to be experienced by someone). This particular feature derives from the diaphanousness of lived-experiences.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/#TranEgoDiscInte

This seems like a good description of so much of life. We are immersed in what we are doing, our conventional identity (the idea of ourself as a named ghost responsible for driving the body) is just gone. And yet others will see us walk our usual distinctive walk, react in our idiosyncratic ways, so that the 'self' is something like the unconscious bodily style of this immersion.

Another helpful quote on the strange relationship of ego and language:
////////////////////////////////////////////
With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds—namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." ONE thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"—even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula—"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently"...

...where there is affinity of language, owing to the common philosophy of grammar—I mean owing to the unconscious domination and guidance of similar grammatical functions—it cannot but be that everything is prepared at the outset for a similar development and succession of philosophical systems, just as the way seems barred against certain other possibilities of world-interpretation.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm#link2HCH0001

assumptions assumptions assumptions — Nickolasgaspar

Yep. So?

can you prove our ability to produce concepts validates the existence of "originals". — Nickolasgaspar

Yep. Logically.

You are posting metaphysical beliefs that aren't based on knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar

Yep. Your brand of knowledge anyway.

No apologies.

Yep. Logically. — Mww

-"dude take care of that back...all this dodging might cause some issues..."
-I don't care about what on can do through logic. This is not how we verify existence. There is a good reason why Peter Higgs didn't receive the Nobel prize ~60 years ago but we waited the Objective verification of his mathematical syllogisms by Cern.....to do it.

Yep. Your brand of knowledge anyway.
No apologies. — Mww

-There is only one brand of knowledge.(A claim that is in total agreement with current available facts with instrumental value).

How do we know they are in our way except when we are ready to replace them? — Joshs

Glad you mentioned that. I love Gadamer on this.

Gadamer also takes issue directly with this view of prejudice and the negative connotations often associated with the notion, arguing that, rather than closing us off, our prejudices are themselves what open us up to what is to be understood.
..
...all interpretation, even of the past, is necessarily ‘prejudgmental’ in the sense that it is always oriented to present concerns and interests, and it is those present concerns and interests that allow us to enter into the dialogue with the matter at issue...
..
The prejudicial character of understanding means that, whenever we understand, we are involved in a dialogue that encompasses both our own self-understanding and our understanding of the matter at issue. In the dialogue of understanding our prejudices come to the fore, both inasmuch as they play a crucial role in opening up what is to be understood, and inasmuch as they themselves become evident in that process. As our prejudices thereby become apparent to us, so they can also become the focus of questioning in their own turn.

This suggests that 'self'-knowledge is a necessary byproduct of interpreting the other.

The fact that understanding operates by means of such anticipatory structures means that understanding always involves what Gadamer terms the ‘anticipation of completeness’—it always involves the revisable presupposition that what is to be understood constitutes something that is understandable, that is, something that is constituted as a coherent, and therefore meaningful, whole.
...
Hermeneutics concerns our fundamental mode of being in the world and understanding is thus the basic phenomenon in our existence.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/#PosPre

Awww, shucks Mr. Bill. Y’all just too damn smart for me. I bow to your superior intellect, and hereby remove myself from further embarrassment.

can you prove our ability to produce concepts validates the existence of "originals". — Nickolasgaspar

well if your argument is that through logic you can prove the existence of "originals" in the world..then it doesn't take special mental skills or hard work for someone to be intellectually superior to you.

Existence has empirical qualities....you need to demonstrate them.
logic alone doesn't meet the standards. This is why we struggle with discredited substances and religious entities and spiritual forces...because others had the same idea with you....

assuming what you need to prove is not reasonable and it isn't what philosophy is about. "NOT even Wrong" arguments are not enough to demonstrate the existence of made up entity. Logic can only take you up to validity. For soundness you will need evidence.

I don't think Dewey ever maintained that habits, or customs, or culture or what have you (name your preferred source of prejudice) prevent us from making reasonable judgments, or preclude us from using what he called "inquiry" (which includes logic and the scientific method) to come to warranted conclusions. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I had the impression from your replies, which seem to me to be vague and perhaps even evasive, that you'd rather not commit yourself to any conclusion or make any judgment on what is the (admittedly unimportant, relatively speaking) matter at hand. That's fine. But I agree with Dewey that as significant as what he called "habits" may be, we have the capacity to judge and come to conclusions based on available evidence and consequences, which are not absolute and are subject to modification based on subsequent evidence and experience.

So I confess I'm less than fond of attitudes along the lines of "Any judgment or claim we make is tainted, so maybe this or that other judgment or claim is just as good if not better" and the ambivalence which results from them.

It strikes me that there's a point when the inclination to discount any assertion or argument because we can't really know anything since we're permeated with prejudices and "culture" should serve to end discussion as well as judgment. Why bother? — Ciceronianus

In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself.

I think you missed it. — Tom Storm

No, you didn't answer my questions. You made a deprecating remark about some people (apparently aiming it at me), then stated the obvious, and asked a loaded question. But you didn't answer my questions.

Here, again:

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"? — baker

Can you actually spell it out?

Step out of your comfort zone (or off your high horse, as the case might be), and really spell this out.

If you can't work it out from what I wrote I'm not going to spend more time on it. And I think @Wayfarer may be right, your sarcasm and jibes are not helpful.

In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself. — baker

I, for one, don't accept that analysis (reasoning) is inherently suspect, regardless of method or the results of its application, merely because it's engaged in by human beings. The analytical mind, properly applied, would make no such assumption.

*sigh*
It wasn't sarcasm, it wasn't a jibe, it was an honest question. Which you evaded, as if this were a watercooler conversation.
I want you to make an effort.

The idea is that thinking about things properly makes an end to aimless, useless thinking.

It wasn't sarcasm, it wasn't a jibe, it was an honest question. — baker

I'd say honest questions don't read like this -

Seriously, can you answer that?

And is it even possible to answer that without sounding like yet another patronizing bourgeois? — baker

You made a deprecating remark about some people (apparently aiming it at me), then stated the obvious, and asked a loaded question. — baker

Seem like jibes...

You keep raising this:

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"? — baker

As I keep saying, this was answered and they were specific questions for @Joshs who, as an academic philosopher with a psychology background, often writes responses based on close readings of complex texts and theory.

Essentially I was asking for his views on how people outside of the academic world, who have an interest in personal growth could approach the sorts of ideas he was referencing. As you may be aware, Josh's has a commitment to people learning and enlarging their perspectives. (sorry Joshs if the language isn't quite right) This may well be the project of philosophy summarized. Perhaps you didn't see the answer because you are rewriting what I said as some kind of elitist nonsense. But the fact remains, people are interested in complex ideas but can't always understand or gain access to them. That's the background I come from, so it's personal.

....people learning and enlarging their perspectives...may well be the project of philosophy summarized... — Tom Storm

:up:

Perhaps you didn't see the answer — Tom Storm

But you didn't answer it.

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"?

Will they be happier then?
Will they suffer less?
Will they completely stop suffering?
Will they be more caring then?
Will the world become a better place?
Will they be safer?
Will crime and wars stop?
Will they stop destroying the planet?
...?

If people want or should do something, then they must have a reason for doing so. I'm asking about this reason (or reasons). Merely being "interested" is trivial and doesn't inspire consistent and energetic action.

But the fact remains, people are interested in complex ideas but can't always understand or gain access to them.

Of course.

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"?

Will they be happier then?
Will they suffer less?
Will they completely stop suffering?
Will they be more caring then?
Will the world become a better place?
Will they be safer?
Will crime and wars stop? — baker

How would I know? I can't speak for others, but maybe you're on track with some of these, hey? Whys, as any child soon learns ends up in an infinite regression of answers followed by more whys.

Why should anyone seek to enlarge their perspective? Why not start a thread on this?

Personally for me, it's to be wiser, which I suspect will lead to better interactions with the world and others and in me being a better person. But why does that matter, Baker? It's whys all the way down.

...we have the capacity to judge and come to conclusions based on available evidence and consequences, which are not absolute and are subject to modification based on subsequent evidence and experience... — Ciceronianus

I just thought this was too obvious to be worth mentioning. Perhaps the fault is mine. Let me try again, summarizing some exploratory hypotheses.

(1) The 'foundation' of fancy metaphysics is 'pre-theoretical' worldly know-how, including ordinary language.

(2) Comprehensive metaphysical visions, which a cynic or commie might call intellectual luxuries, tend to 'break down' as they are elaborated/specified. (Consider the attempts to reduce the lifeworld to mind or matter. )

(3) Something like Freud's 'ego ideal' structures a personality, and one approach to this ego-ideal is through the shadow it casts, that which it defines itself against, its giant-or-windmill. For instance, a crude scientism can't help being haunted by the ghost of theology, while scientism is itself the shadow cast by an identification with lost spiritual wisdom. Your anti-skeptical position (if I read you correctly) may have inspired you to read too much skepticism into my posts above. I was just saying that inquiry is endless and historical, that it has a personal/mythic aspect, and that totalizing visions tend to have problems, whether or not their proponents will acknowledge these problems. Yet totalization (comprehensiveness and coherence) is what we strive toward.