↪Punshhh
I think these views have a lot to contribute to philosophy, but I have mentioned the esoteric traditions on a couple of other threads. I am not going to be put off by a couple of negative responses I got because I think an open mind is what is needed.

I agree and I have tried that too, but not with much success. Western philosophy is derived from the classical tradition, it seems with logic and analytical thought and ideas from a different source don't easily mesh with it.

For example, I occasionally say that one can know things indipendent of one's own mind. It just doesn't compute around here.

I occasionally say that one can know things independent of one's own mind. — Punshhh

That is interesting, please elaborate.

That is interesting, please elaborate.

Well, a person (a being) is not just a mind, they are also a body and a consciousness within that body. So each being knows their body, their life and the world their body inhabits through their body and its consciousness. The thinking mind is something different from this knowledge and there is a tendency in the modern world to believe that we are thinking minds with a nature defined by the intellectual knowledge and conditioning that our thinking mind receives from society. In this the innate knowing of our being is marginalised, even not seen, that we are blind to it.

Yes, this is how I also understand it, and there is nothing mystical about my thinking. DNA information is the only constant - the body and intellectual mind are constantly changing and evolving, and we are generally blind to this. That DNA is information, but not information for the intellectual mind is a challenge for western thought.

So how do you get in touch with this innate knowledge? I have postulated emotions bridge these two minds.

I don't know if this is relevant to your debate but junk DNA may be a missing link. There is a body of scientific thought that while only 2 strands were thought to be important the so called junk may contain unknown hidden potential. This may contain areas of potential including aspects relating to emotions, but of course this is an area of speculation.

Yes easily. It was originally called junk, but we really don't yet know what it is.

There are a number of approaches, a good start is to develop an affinity with animals, through a pet for example. Animals are free of a thinking mind, so use knowledge of and provided by the body. St Francis of Assisi is a good example of this. Or meditation and studying eastern philosophy and religion can work quite well. Bypassing the mind is implicit in these philosophies. The practice of yoga in combination with meditation can help one to develop the energy flows and chackras in the body in a way in which you are conscious of it. There are other techniques, but air am short of time today.

I do it by constructing a logic around consciousness, and testing the logic through introspection. Although I also have a lot of contact with animals - mostly wild animals. And I have a lot of respect for eastern philosophy, although not in its entirety - I pick and choose the bits I agree with.

I like what you say about testing the logic through introspection, I do that too. What I was thinking of was a kind of contemplation in which you are distinguishing knowing through the body, consciousness and being, from the thinking mind, ego and personality. Once you are good at this and see the distinction clearly, you can start to inform one from the other and develop a more subtle understanding of yourself, the world and your place in it. Perhaps, this is wisdom.

Jack Cummins ; " I simply wish to ask the question of what is the purpose of philosophy?"

To learn the truth.

Unless you're asking about university philosophy, which appears to have no purpose. .

To learn the truth. — FrancisRay

But what if the truth is not to your liking, what then?

Once you are good at this and see the distinction clearly, you can start to inform one from the other and develop a more subtle understanding of yourself, the world and your place in it. — Punshhh

:up: we should discus this sometime.

The purpose of philosophy is to give those of us afflicted with big picture nerd minds something to do that sounds important, thus making us feel important.

Some folks do seem to fear what they might find out, but they are not philosophers. Philosophy cannot be concerned with what we like and don't like.

You have an unusually low view of philosophy. But I suppose you're right for some so-called philosophers.

:up:

You have an unusually low view of philosophy. But I suppose you're right for some so-called philosophers. — FrancisRay

Well, I might have been overly dramatic in my last comment. I do that sometimes. You can call me Professor Troll as my punishment. :-)

I'm striving for being realistic though.

Most of us here do have big picture nerd minds, and not by choice. And most of what we discuss together is considered an impractical waste of time by most folks, with some good reason. And I think there is some reality to the notion that we philosopher types often attempt to make ourselves feel bigger by attaching ourselves to big ideas.

"Hey everybody, look at me, here's my huge very important theory about the biggest subject of them all, the nature of God!!"

Don't know about you, but personally I make such ego moves all the time. I see I have a good bit of company.

I'll admit to having a complicated relationship with philosophy, with thought itself. A quick story to illustrate. I spent today way out in the woods in a beautiful palmetto forest. The longer I was there the slower the gears of my nerd mind rolled until finally I was totally content sitting still doing nothing but looking around for a couple hours. Still. At peace. Enough. The price tag for such rewarding experiences is....

Letting go of all my grand ideas. To paraphrase and probably butcher Jesus, :-) I had to die to the realm of abstractions in order to be reborn in to the real world.

The real world is where it's at guys, not our thoughts about the real world. Our thoughts about the real world can certainly be useful, indeed essential, but they are still a watered down, diluted, second hand experience. Our thoughts about the real world might be compared to your photo on Facebook. The photo has it's practical uses, but surely the real you is far more interesting than the photo, right?

Is this a low view of philosophy? I'm content that you should answer that question. To me, it's using philosophy to discover the limits of philosophy.

I more or less share your view, but probably rate abstrart thought a bit higher.

We either have a good idea about what is going on or not.
It is just like a novel that includes you but compares your point of view with a baseline of the real that does not care what you think.
It is important not to be a fool in this regard.

"But what if the truth is not to your liking, what then?"

What does that have to do with it??? The truth is the truth. Emotion, bias etc are immaterial.

What does that have to do with it??? The truth is the truth. Emotion, bias etc are immaterial. — david plumb

I am with you brother, but not everybody is and for complicated reasons as is evidenced by this thread.

I frequently come across the idea that philosophy is useless navel-gazing, and my response is as follows:

1. Everyone holds philosophical ideas, even if they are not aware of them. It's impossible to take any action or inaction without some notions of what reality is, what life is etc

2. Philosophical ideas that have not been scrutinized are often flawed. Furthermore, while philosophical debates often fall short of concluding what is true, they are actually quite good at exposed flawed ideas.
Just look at theism -- most people are some flavor of theist, yet many of the reasons that people believe in God have compelling philosophical counter-arguments. It's just most people are not aware of them. Because they think that philosophy is useless navel-gazing.

3. Philosophy is the name given for discussions that are at the extreme of human knowledge. When any part of philosophy reaches a stage where we can make testable predictions, it becomes an -ology, or a branch of mathematics or whatever, and we stop referring to it as philosophy.
So, it only looks like philosophy doesn't deliver concrete things, because once things become concrete, we don't call them philosophy any more.

We either have a good idea about what is going on or not.

Quite, and how will you know?

It is just like a novel that includes you but compares your point of view with a baseline of the real that does not care what you think.

Yes and when it comes to the esoteric, science, academic knowledge etc is also in the dark.

It is important not to be a fool in this regard.

Quite, not an easy thing to avoid.