IDK, wouldn't the Earth being round, the Earth rotating around the Sun, etc. all be examples here? — Count Timothy von Icarus
All of this is merely your own conception of what you consider practicing philosophy. — Vaskane
I don't mean to claim all philosophy is affectation. — Ciceronianus
According to Wallace Stevens, "Imagination loses vitality as it ceases to adhere to the real." I think the same goes for philosophy — Ciceronianus
If we "have to" there's something about it, or us, which requires or provides for its use. How/why is it appropriate to insist it's use must be justified if that's the case? What induces someone to claim that what we have to do by virtue of the fact we live is unwarranted? — Ciceronianus
Descartes isn't called the "Father of Modern Philosophy" for nothing. Descartes had, and in some respects still has, his followers. It seems to me that Kant, with his things-in-themselves, and any of those who accept dualism, the view that there is an external world, apart from us, the mind-body distinction; those that believe we can't be directly aware of the world, all participate in what seems to me to be an affectation. — Ciceronianus
I wonder what ‘adhering to the real’ could possibly mean? Perhaps to the ever changing definitions of the real that have made their way into use over the past few millennia? I say we should all adhere to the mugwump, since that is about as clarifying. — Joshs
After reading the OP and its supporters posts, it reminded me of a severe case of Projection Defense Mechanism symptom in Psychology.
One of the extreme cases of Scepticism was by Hume. He even doubted his own "self". But we don't call him someone who indulged in affectation.
"I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception. When my perceptions are remov'd for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist." (Hume, Treatise) — Corvus
As you might guess, I have some sympathy for this point of view. I think it's similar to the view that we're participants in the rest of the world and thereby part of the real and our lives are our interaction with it. — Ciceronianus
What (or whose or what topics in) philosophy is not affectation, in your view? — Luke
I would just add to that that the real is what is constantly changing with respect to itself. — Joshs
It was just a passing impression. Not a judgement. No worries.I'd never heard of this mechanism. Those psychologists are so clever, with names. — Ciceronianus
I had to answer the similar question on the other thread. I understand Hume's scepticism as his endeavour trying to find the ground for certainty and warrant for belief in the existence of the world and self, not the actual existence itself.How odd, and revealing, it is that Hume thought he didn't exist while he slept. How was it, you think, that he tried to "catch himself" without a perception? Did he try to "sneak up" on himself so to speak, only to find that he was aware he was doing so and continued to see, hear, smell, etc.? What would have been the case if he succeeded? — Ciceronianus
You don’t believe there’s an external world apart from us? — Joshs
So who is this mysterious ‘someone’? — Joshs
I understand Hume's scepticism as his endeavour trying to find the ground for certainty and warrant for belief in the existence of the world and self, not the actual existence itself. — Corvus
That may well be. And it may be that a desire for absolute certainty is behind the effort. But I still think the fact such skepticism is so contrary to how we live our lives that it should count against it, so to speak. If inductive reasoning (for example) is something we "have to do" by virtue of living, what induces us to think that there's no basis for it? Why question it in the first place? — Ciceronianus
Yeah. But so many folk take this as showing that it is never going to lead us to the correct conclusions. That's muddled.Plato's point isn't that we are tricked by the stick in the water. It's that we can be tricked, and so our naive judgements aren't always going to lead us to the correct conclusions. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Any philosophical discussion which doesn't require us to disregard or consider of no real value how we live in determining the nature of what we interact with in the course of living will, in all likelihood, be relatively free of affectation. — Ciceronianus
Any philosophical discussion which doesn't require us to disregard or consider of no real value how we live in determining the nature of what we interact with in the course of living will, in all likelihood, be relatively free of affectation.
— Ciceronianus
I'm wondering whether there is any such philosophical discussion. Can you give an example of the topic of such a discussion?
— Luke
Pragmatism? — Tom Storm
I don't think what I refer to is hypocrisy. But I think there's more involved than a "trial run" by the curious. I do think it's peculiar, and aberrant in a way, requiring an explanation. I'm wondering if it's a kind of contrivance on the part of those who engage in it. — Ciceronianus
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.