Hello everybody! I am new here. — Jan

Hello and welcome.

presume that philosofical talk has not much to do with details, but everything with the big picture. — Jan

Good post.

As I experience it, knowledge and understanding are like walls. The details are the bricks you use to build it. Good philosophers have to be masons as well as architects.

Look at what I’ve just written. For me, one detail in particular stands out. I’ve identified the source of my understanding - introspection. When I do that, it gives you the chance to evaluate whether or not my justification is adequate. Ideas don’t stand on their own, they need a superstructure to provide stability and support. Can you tell I used to be an engineer.

Jan, hello and welcome. The need or exploitation of details depends upon the topic. Discussions of the classical notions of "being" may veer off into assorted details since the subject is not well defined, but when occasionally a topic in mathematics is introduced the necessity for details arises due to the subject's highly defined structure, whether one agrees with or disputes accepted qualities.

Can you tell I was a mathematician?

Hello Jan and welcome to the forum.

As pointed out, details depend upon the topic. I think arts, philosophy of art, or aesthetics are good examples of studying with more detail the details. When we read poetry or listen to music, I believe we pay attention to the details, and this makes our experience more complete. Furthermore, if we want to make a critical reflection on a piece of art, we should focus on the details, too. But I guess you should tell us what kind of topic you were thinking of. Since that's the answer given by Copilot, I think you asked the AI about art, but I am not really sure.

Welcome!

I think of myself as a "big picture" thinker; however "big picture" thinking had better anchor itself in relevant details if is going to be of any use. The world is a very detailed place but we (humans) have a large but very limited capacity to process all the possible details.

The trouble is that even when the philosophy is about the big picture, the concepts and arguments being used have to be analyzed in detail. What exactly does concept X presuppose, is it consistent with concept Y in its aspect Z, and so on.

Philosophy involves ultimate generality, but that generality doesn't imply vagueness. So we can make a distinction between two dimensions: general-particular, and vague-detailed. We can address the general in a detailed way.

EDIT: Oh, and welcome :smile:

As Jamal points out, the holistic perspective doesn't mean the details are absent. A good way to look at it might be that the conclusions paint the big picture, while the premises in support of that conclusion compose the finer details.

In many discussions I hear people always dive into details and see the discussions go south.

How important are details?

Copilot told me: “ It’s like painting with broad brush strokes while occasionally adding a few fine lines to bring the image to life.” I think its metaphore is spot on. — Jan

I read this and all I can think of saying is: can you give me some specifics, some details, so I know what you mean? For me big pictures can be amorphous and can lack definition.

Philosophical talk.....................Copilot told me: “ It’s like painting with broad brush strokes while occasionally adding a few fine lines to bring the image to life.” I think its metaphore is spot on. — Jan

In Philosophical talk, there is the abstract and universal, the broad brush strokes, and the particular and concrete, the fine lines.

I don't agree with Copilot. I think it is back to front. I would reword it as: "Philosophical talk is like continually painting in fine lines, the particular and concrete, with the hope that occasionally the broad brush strokes, the abstract and universal, are brought to life".

Philosophy is about the big picture, the abstract and the universal, such as the nature of evil. Yet humans are not able to understand the abstract and universal in itself, such as the nature of evil. It is impossible for the human mind to understand the big picture as it exists in itself as a an abstract and universal concept.

The human is only able to understand particular concrete examples of abstract and universal concepts. For example, we can agree that the Holodomor, the forced famine perpetrated by Stalin’s regime against Ukraine from 1932-1933 killed millions and exemplifies the use of extreme cruelty for political control, was a particular and concrete act of evil.

From particular concrete examples, which may be known and understood, the abstract universal may be inferred. This means that the abstract universal, the nature of evil, can never be known but can only be inferred. Although philosophy talk is about the big picture, the abstract and the universal, philosophy talk can only progress by knowing and understanding particular concrete examples, the fine lines, from which the big picture, the broad brush strokes, may be inferred.

James Pryor in his article Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper, James Pryor notes the importance of the concrete particular example in philosophy talk.

Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis
more plausible
Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument.
It is very important to use examples in a philosophy paper. Many of the claims
philosophers make are very abstract and hard to understand, and examples are the best
way to make those claims clearer.
You may want to give some examples to illustrate the author's point.
Do you illustrate your claims with good examples?
"Give an example?"

Philosophy talk must begin by knowing and understanding the fine lines, the particular and the concrete, in the hope that occasionally the broader brush strokes, the abstract and universal, can be inferred and brought to life.

Thank you all for the warm welcome! I’m impressed by all your points of view (and now I see the need for concreet examples)

It doesn't matter whether the picture is big or small, coarse or fine; philosophy is what one does when the picture one has in mind fails to correspond to the world one lives in. Accordingly, the most useful tool in the philosopher's kit is the eraser. (But try to use it on the picture, not the world.)

Run away while you can!

I’m impressed by all your points of view (and now I see the need for concreet examples) — Jan

Now's when you give us more of your thoughts - you know... details.

Now's when you give us more of your thoughts - you know... details

Yes, yes, I am thinking

This means that the abstract universal, the nature of evil, can never be known but can only be inferred.

When I see a chair, to me it is a chair. Although at first it is a chair because I recognize it as such, one can argue if it is a chair. To an ant for example it probebly is not a chair. To an alien it could be something we can’t imagine. Even if the chair looks and feels real, at some scientists will say that the chair could be non existing.

Now the nature of evil: in an encounter with bad outcome with a covert narcissist, I got a strong impression of the devil.
That devil looked as real to me as the chair I spoke of.

Therefore I think that the nature of the chair is as good or as bad to know as the nature of evil.
That, to me, makes the nature of evil a detail as well as the chair is.

The abstraction of what goes above this is what puzzels me…..

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The abstraction of what goes above this is what puzzels me….. — Jan

I agree that when I see a chair, to me it is a chair, but to an ant it is probably not a chair. I agree that there is a lot in common to when I see a chair and when I see evil.

If I see a set of shapes, such as horizontals, verticals and planes, in order for me to recognize that this set of shapes is a chair I must first have the concept of a chair. My concept of chair must be prior to being able to recognise that this set of shapes is a chair. For example, could you recognize a "kitabu" if you had no concept of what a "kitabu" is?

The original metaphor talks about broad brush strokes and fine lines. But it depends what "broad brush strokes" and "fine lines" is referring to. I am assuming that "broad brush strokes" is referring to the general and universal, such as the nature of evil, and "fine lines" is referring to the particular and concrete, such as one particular evil act. Though this is just my assumption.

My concept of chair is abstract and universal. The set of shapes I see is one concrete and particular instantiation of my concept.

Where does my concept of a chair come from? Perhaps over a period of time I see many different concrete and particular sets of shapes, but each time this set of shapes has been labelled a "chair". Eventually, because of the nature of the brain, I will begin to understand the concept of "chair". IE, it is impossible to understand a new concept by seeing just one particular and concrete instantiation of it.

The brain is able to abstract the concept of "chair" from seeing different examples, different instantiations, of sets of shapes that have been labelled "chairs".

Where does my concept of a chair come from? Perhaps over a period of time I see many different concrete and particular sets of shapes, but each time this set of shapes has been labelled a "chair". Eventually, because of the nature of the brain, I will begin to understand the concept of "chair". IE, it is impossible to understand a new concept by seeing just one particular and concrete instantiation of it. — RussellA

Your concept of chair and recognising a chair comes from many aspects of how we interpret the world. The detail of all the aspects of how you end up looking at a chair and recognising it is a chair would fill a library. However, a child doesn't need to know the detail to know what a chair is.
The detail is fascinating and great for discussion but is mainly irrelevant.
I like detail and I am fascinated by why we think and how we have amassed such incredible understanding of the world but it isn't necessary for living. How different people view the modern world is incredible to me.

You better mind the details. The devil's in them, or so it is said.

The detail of all the aspects of how you end up looking at a chair and recognising it is a chair would fill a library. — Malcolm Parry

Books have been written about cognition, but the brain can be more direct. Given only eight pictures, each of which is labelled either as a "kitabi" or labelled not as a "kitabi", I would imagine that you could without too much difficulty be able to translate the word "kitabi" into English.

presume that philosofical talk has not much to do with details, but everything with the big picture. — Jan

What is the "big picture" if not "all the details", or integrating all details into a consistent whole (big picture)?

When you don't integrate all the details you end up with an inconsistent big picture.

What is the "big picture" if not "all the details", or integrating all details into a consistent whole (big picture)?

That’s an interesting thought…..
To me it looks like every detail exists because of its meaning. A detail can not exist without given a meaning by us. We can “pair” details. We call this abstraction.

So it’s not about details, but about the awareness the so called details gave by our sences. I say “so called” because as I said earlier: the details are born by the meaning we give them.

I think climbing the pyramid of details by abstracting them all, if possible, would give you a godlike view about life.

What is the "big picture" if not "all the details"? The big picture is a particular relation between its details.

Consider only three details: A, B and C
These can be related into seven possible big pictures: A B C AB AC BC ABC
So how do we know of the seven possible big pictures which if any are the actual big picture?

But there are not just three details in the world, but an almost infinite number. This means that the number of possible big pictures in the world is also almost infinite. Then the question is, of these almost infinite number of possible big pictures in the world, which are the actual big pictures?

In many discussions I hear people always dive into details and see the discussions go south.
How important are details? — Jan

2500 years ago, Plato & Aristotle created the Big Picture of reality that we call Philosophy. It was mostly focused on Universals & Generalizations. But modern science is focused on the itsy-bitsy details. And many TPF posters today seem to have a case of Physics Envy. So, they tend to "dive into the details" to the point that their threads lose track of the original point in question. Hence, we need an Ariadne's red thread to find our way out of the labyrinth.

A.N. Whitehead once commented that modern philosophy has been mostly a "series of footnotes to Plato". I assume he means that the Big Ideas of ancient Greece have been dissected into minuscule bits, to the point that their meaning is nearly indecipherable. Anyway, most of our forum discussions are expressed in terms of Metaphors, not Facts. But some of us get those confused. :smile:

Philosophical Stagnation :
The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. It suggests that Western philosophy has largely built upon or interacted with Plato's ideas. While some interpretations see it as a compliment to Plato's seminal work, others view it as a critique of philosophical stagnation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote