• Arne
    295
    I, on the other hand, have always defined philosophy as an ongoing discussion over the nature of the real. As such, I do not subscribe to philosophy as hermetically sealed off from the real. — Arne
    So, then what's all the disagreement and misunderstanding about in philosophy if we're talking about the same thing, the real?
    Posty McPostface

    First and for what it is worth, I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real. In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing. At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject. Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it. And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct. I only insisted that it is mine. How do you define philosophy? :smile:
  • Posty McPostface
    3.5k
    How do you define philosophy?Arne

    As consensus building, which is desperately lacking in my view.
  • Posty McPostface
    3.5k
    I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real.Arne

    So, if there's no consensus, then what are we talking about?

    In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing.Arne

    I'm not sure if it's the same thing if we can't agree on what the nature of the real is.

    At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject.Arne

    Why not? If it's about the same thing, then why so much disagreement?

    Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it.Arne

    Well, yes, we do hold different beliefs about the world; but, if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it?

    And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct.Arne

    So, then, what is it? Just a personal belief of sorts?
  • Arne
    295
    if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it?Posty McPostface

    I said philosophy was a discussion regarding the nature of the real. I did not define any "goals" to be achieved by such discussion and even if I did, your comment implies that such goals would be or are supposed to be the same for all those involved in the discussion. I already have an understanding of the real and I suspect that may be true of most people engaged in philosophical discussion. One of my primary goals is to articulate my understanding in hopes of gauging its accuracy and/or depths in terms of the responses of others engaged in the conversation. Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se. But if they articulate their disagreement in such a manner as to enable me to rethink and/or deepen my understanding, then their disagreements are quite welcome. Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong.
  • Posty McPostface
    3.5k
    I said philosophy was a discussion regarding the nature of the real. I did not define any "goals" to be achieved by such discussion and even if I did, your comment implies that such goals would be or are supposed to be the same for all those involved in the discussion.Arne

    Well, we would hope that to be the case, yea?

    One of my primary goals is to articulate my understanding in hopes of gauging its accuracy and/or depths in terms of the responses of others engaged in the conversation.Arne

    So, that can only be done through disagreement, yes?

    Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se.Arne

    But, it's conducive to your motive of 'gauging [your beliefs] accuracy'?

    But if they articulate their disagreement in such a manner as to enable me to rethink and/or deepen my understanding, then their disagreements are quite welcome.Arne

    So, your seeking to reaffirm your beliefs or challenge them?

    Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong.Arne

    I don't see how this follows...
  • Posty McPostface
    3.5k
    I'm not sure if anyone noticed; but, the real hidden gem about 'Reality Therapy' is that anyone can engage in it, without formal training, I think.

    It highlights why often psychologists and psychiatrists don't achieve remission from their own method of treatment, and 'life' simply does that for the patient.

    So, coming to the realization of what is under your control or not, through the realization of actual needs from 'wants' or fantasies, is quite important here.
  • TheMadFool
    2.3k
    You didn't answer the question though, you just deflected the issue. What is the threat that society poses? A limitation of personal freedom, through taxation or something else?Posty McPostface

    The social glue is made of sacrifices of the individual. Law and order, most important for society, consists of curbing the individual's basic instincts to achieve the best possible state of existence. However, no single person can do that without infringing on someone's elses territory. So, what we need, as you said, is the golden mean.

    Let's set aside all the distractions and focus on the bare essentials of what benefits accrue from social existence. All I can see is safety. Can't safety be achieved through non-social means e.g. intelligent robots to control us?
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.