R.G. Collingswood seems to exaggerate — 180 Proof
Yes, as is confirmed in large part by many decades of cross-cultural reseaches in e.g. evolutionary psychology (we are primates, not "cartesian subjects") and cognitive neuroscience (with a large brain hardwired with cognitive biases constituting a dominant, atavistic survival engine rather than a "truth engine") with which Collingwood's 'cultural idealism' is substantively inconsistent. Thus, the overwhelming majority of human beings only have worldviews (re: fantasy (e.g. mythology, theology, ideology ...)) and not philosophies (re: reflection) which they struggle – as you say, Pantagruel, "the real challenge" – to attain as critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives.From what I have seen (and experienced) the real challenge to reason is less an external than an internal one. We don't discover, embrace, and implement optimal truths because, at some perplexing level, we don't want to. — Pantagruel
Just the opposite as my previous references to 'evolutionary psychology', 'cognitive neuroscience' & 'critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives' of philosophy make clear (if you carefully read my post). I'm pointing out that any or all of these constituents of hand-me-down worldviews – mythology, theology, ideology – are the dominant drivers (i.e. culturally enabling constraints) of almost all human judgments and not, as you (or your reading of Collingwood) seem to imply, philosophical reflections (e.g.) on "absolute presuppositions".You seem to be implying that mythologies, theologies, and ideologies do not have actual impacts on how people behave. — Pantagruel
I have not stated or implied this.You are criticizing these elements as faux-values — Pantagruel
The unexamined life is not worth living. ~Socratesto be reflectively corrected.
Your dogma, sir, flies in the face of the demonstrable fact (throughout history and across cultures) that very few people actually live examined lives (i.e. actually philosophize).I stand with Collingwood's view, that everyone has a philosophy.
Strawmaning non sequitur. We're obviously talking past one another .. :roll:... (I hope I've got that right). They suffer from being misinterpreted by first-level dogmatic scientisms whose goal is to subjugate these disparate values, rather than understanding them.
Your dogma, sir, flies in the face of the demonstrable fact (throughout history and across cultures) that very few people actually live examined lives (i.e. actually philosophize). — 180 Proof
And again, your contention has nothing to do with what I've writeen. To wit:I could have sworn you meant to subject these to critical revision. — Pantagruel
i.e. examining one's own 'unexamined life' (e.g. one's 'unexamined' assumptions, biases, desires, etc).philosophies (re: reflection) [ ... ] as critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives — 180 Proof
Why not just concede the point like an adult? Btw, your selective misreading is both tedious and disingenuous. — 180 Proof
I'm very much concerned with why people actually do what they do. — Pantagruel
From what I have seen (and experienced) the real challenge to reason is less an external than an internal one. We don't discover, embrace, and implement optimal truths because, at some perplexing level, we don't want to. — Pantagruel
I stand with Collingwood's view, that everyone has a philosophy. The fact that it hasn't evolved to a reflective stage is central to his model. — Pantagruel
Thus, the overwhelming majority of human beings only have worldviews (re: fantasy (e.g. mythology, theology, ideology ...) and not philosophies (re: reflection) which they struggle – as you say, Pantagruel, "the real challenge" – to attain as critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives. — 180 Proof
:up: :up:Whatever worldview they hold appears to be 'shallow' and tends not to be the product of examination. I guess underpinning these 'mythologies' are some vague presuppositions. Probably notions similar to: "Everything must makes sense." "God will take care of it." "No one can be trusted." — Tom Storm
:100:Most people certainly end up developing beliefs and assumptions about how the world is which may flirt with the key questions of philosophy. But I personally come down on the side that this is generally unsystematic, impressionistic, emotionally driven and often predicated upon unexamined templates provided by superstitions or religions.
Which is to say, an individual, will tend to discover and create opportunities to act in accordance with their principles or convictions, to the extent that he succeeds in explicitly formalizing (materializing) his meaning. Which is a philosophy of enaction. — Pantagruel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.