That is the same fallacy as Dingo committed. I am not saying that philosophy is the only discipline that requires rigorous analysis. Law, mathematics, actually every scientific endeavour does. I am saying rigorous analysis is a part of philosophy. — Tobias

You've missed my point. I spent my career as an engineer formally and rigorously making and defending arguments very similar to the ones I do here on the forum. I didn't have to do professional level philosophy in order to gain that experience and skill.

It is actually what sets it apart from mysticism or faith. Mysticism does not require argumentation, but revelation. — Tobias

I make rigorous arguments about mysticism here on the forum all the time. It is one of the main subjects I'm interested in. Equating mysticism with faith is either a cheap rhetorical trick or a display of lack of understanding.

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. — Tobias

As the comment you quoted from my post notes, @DingoJones did present a thesis and argue for it.

developing skills at communicating about philosophical topics requires relevant skill developing social experiences including exposure to unfamiliar ways of looking at things. — wonderer1

Did anyone in this discussion indicate or imply that this isn't true? I don't think so.

JTB is partially correct in that knowledge must be a truth that is held in at least mind. If no one knows X then X is not knowledge. X must also be true. The key error is an insufficient connection between the justification and the belief. If the justification makes the belief necessarily true then the belief is impossibly false. Modal logic: □P ≡ ◇P // Necessarily(P) ≡ Not Possibly Not P — PL Olcott

JTB is a definition, not a fact. I think it's a bad definition. Any definition that says Isaac Newton didn't know that gravity is a force 340 years ago because we now think about it as a bending of spacetime is silly.

JTB is insufficient as a way of understanding knowledge. — wonderer1

I agree. It doesn't describe how real people know things or what they mean when the say they know something.

I am arguing, you on the other hand are not. — Tobias

This is clearly not true. You say "My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue..." @DingoJones gives counter-examples, which is a valid method of argumentation. You may be unconvinced, but I've heard that isn't the standard by which we should judge philosophy.

One of the criteria for being considered a philosopher — Tobias

I don't think we are talking about whether or not we are philosophers. We are talking about what philosophy is.

One of the criteria for being considered a philosopher is that you have displayed a certain level of rigor in your analysis of philosophical questions. Now if you never offer these arguments for scrutiny there is no way the community of philosophers can assess them and you cannot be considered a philosopher. — Tobias

Gregor Mendel's studies on genetics were never published until after he died. Would you say he was not a scientist? Emily Dickenson's poems were never published while she was alive. Would you say she was not a poet? I think your opinion of what it takes to be a philosopher is a bit high-falutin.

In your rather short not very thoughtful, but still condescending reply — Tobias

A good case of the philosophical pot calling the philosophical kettle black.

I know that thinking in solitude about life the universe and everything does not make you a philosopher yet. — Tobias

Are we talking about whether I am a philosopher - I've never claimed to be. I was talking about whether Taoism is philosophy.

There needs to be rigor in that thinking and that is hard to acquire on your own. — Tobias

Philosophy is not the only method for learning how to think rigorously.

the distinction between spirituality and philosophy — Moliere

I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality." Is Taoism spiritualism? I'm willing to say it includes mysticism -The belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as self-awareness, intuition, or insight). It's fine if you decide that kind of philosophy is not your cup of tea, but it's unreasonable for you to claim it is not tea at all.

not just from Eastern religions, either. — Moliere

Your argument seems to be that eastern philosophies are not philosophies because they are religions, but they're not, or at least they don't have to be. Taoist philosophy is separate from Taoist religion and came first.

Philosophical School of the Dao ("Taoist philosophy") or "Taology" ("study of the Tao"), or the mystical aspect—the philosophical doctrines based on the texts of the I Ching, the Tao Te Ching, and the Zhuangzi. One of the hundred schools of thought during the Warring States period. The earliest recorded uses of the term Tao to refer to a philosophy or a school of thought are found in the works of classical historians during Han Dynasty. These works include The Commentary of Zhuo by Zuo Qiuming and in the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Tan. This usage of the term to narrowly denote a school of thought precedes the emergence of the Celestial Masters and associated later religions. — Wikipedia - Taoism

Mysticism. — Tobias

There's a difference between the activities — Moliere

If that's true, then you don't consider Taoism and Buddhism philosophies, is that correct?

I'm not sure if you do need to bring something, — Moliere

I don't believe in philosophical blank slates. World views come as standard equipment, along with the accessories required to grow and develop them. Philosophy just helps us sharpen our pencils.

Note - three different metaphors in three sentences.

I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. — Tom Storm

I spend time on the r/Taoism subreddit on reddit. People are always asking how they can solve personal problems using Taoist principles. As I see it, Taoism is a path without a goal. It's a process to follow to make you the kind of person who can solve those problems. I think other kinds of philosophy are similar. Perhaps that seems at odds with what I wrote in my previous post:

That's pragmatism, or at least it's foundation. I come from science and engineering, so my focus is on knowledge - how to get it and what to do with it once you have it. Very concrete - problem solving. — T Clark

I don't think it is. Pragmatism is also about process, not answers. Answers are what science provides.

I think good philosophy begins with life, encountering a problem that doesn't yield to the usual approach, finding something that works and wondering why it works, noticing something peculiar, or noticing the peculiarity of something ordinary. It begins, so to speak, with things, not with ideas about things. — Srap Tasmaner

That's pragmatism, or at least it's foundation. I come from science and engineering, so my focus is on knowledge - how to get it and what to do with it once you have it. Very concrete - problem solving.

But when I look at SEP, I see too much philosophy that starts on paper, lives on paper, passes into oblivion on paper. — Srap Tasmaner

I find SEP really helpful, but I never go to it until I want the detail it provides. I also use it and Wikipedia when I come across something new I'm not familiar with.

1. Be curious about the world.
2. Be curious about how you think about the world.
3. Learn about the world however you can (looking, asking people, reading).
4. Learn new ways of thinking and, one hopes, get better at it by talking to people, reading, reflecting.
5. Make sure you don't forget (1) and (2), ever.
6. Don't worry if it's called "philosophy." — Srap Tasmaner

I like it. I started a thread a year or so ago about how you don't need to read philosophy. I overstated my case. I think reading other philosophers is useful, but everything has to start the way you've laid it out.

Because this is what is most important in philosophy: philosophical thinking, not philosophical knowledge. You can know about all the philosophers of the world and what they have written, but if you don't know how to think and actually thing philosophically --in the same way pone does with mathematics-- it's all on the surface. Very little useful. It's encyclopedic versus operational knowledge. And to operate philosophically is to think philosophically. — Alkis Piskas

Well put. I'd go one step further and say you have to know how to use philosophy in your everyday life in order to really be able to say you do philosophy. Your analogy with math is a good one. Reading and understanding the fundamental law of calculus is fine, but you have to be able to do the calculations.

↪T Clark is doing the approach to philosophy; when such introspection arrives at a conclusion, philosophy is being done. — Mww

I think that Kafka quote provides a good example of how philosophy is done, at least how I try to do it. I was rummaging around, thinking, talking to other people. Then I read that quote and it was as if a door opened. "That's what I'm doing! Someone else is doing it too." Reading philosophy is all about finding kindred spirits, not following gurus. My kindred spirits - Emerson, Lao Tzu, R.G. Collingwood, P.W. Herman, Kafka...

I would not attempt to actually 'do ' philosophy, I don't have the expertise. — Tom Storm

It always annoys me when you say something like this. You're one of the most widely read, open minded, observant, and genuinely curious people here on the forum. You do philosophy for the reasons people invented philosophy in the first place. And you like "Annie Hall."

You Kant fail. — jgill

Ahem...

I probably don't. — Moliere

Sorry, I shouldn't have barked. I love that Kafka quote. It points out that you have to bring something to the philosophy game. You have to have developed a world view, a perspective, before you start. You can't just pick a philosopher at random and start believing what they say. You see that a lot here on the forum - people quoting philosophers without really understanding the implications and consequences of those beliefs. Other philosophers can help you find the way, but it's your path.

there's something to be said for not seeking. It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy. — Moliere

You don't need books in order to seek. They can help, but they can't do it by themselves. They can also misdirect if you don't have a strong enough vision of your own.

It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy. — Moliere

Then you don't understand what philosophy is.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — Kafka

Then, if you want to do some reading, you can.

I can;t imagine what you think mysticism is about. — FrancisRay

Forgive me, I copied this from the OP for a discussion I started a year or so ago called "What is mysticism."

I have some ideas about what mysticism is, but I’ve never tried to tie them down. For that reason, it’s not a word I use much. It definitely has a bad connotation in some uses – it’s often mixed up with ideas about the occult. Chinese warriors flying through the air with their swords flashing. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to look for a definition of “mysticism” that I can use from now on. Here are some definitions from several sources:

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth).

I like number 4 the best. Based on that, yes, Taoism is a form of mysticism. The lesson I take from this exercise is that "mysticism" has at least two conflicting meanings. The first; as described in Items 1, 3, 4, and 9; represents a potentially valid method to gain knowledge about the world. The second; as described in Items 2, 5, and 6 represents a vague, undisciplined, invalid method to gain the appearance of knowledge or power. These two meanings are often mixed up. There are clearly those who don't think that mysticism, by whatever definition, is a valid means to knowledge.

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?
When asked how he acquired his knowledge he answers, 'I look inside myself and see'.

If you're arguing the mysticism is not the study of consciousness then thanks for the chat but we'd best leave it here. It is such a basic and easily verifiable fact. . — FrancisRay

The Tao Te Ching is not about studying consciousness, it's about using consciousness, i.e. introspection and intuition, to study the world.

I've been thinking that moral relativism can provide a good framework to suggest that one's idea of 'goodness' in death is individually determined based on ones cultural and individual factors, and therefore the only definition of goodness in death can be 'that which is satisfactory to those involved. — AlexMcGram

When I talk about a "good death" I'm not making a moral statement. I mean that the death is psychologically satisfying to those involved, especially the person dying. What's considered a good death is certainly based on cultural and individual factors.

Haiku is not a Zen souvenir. It is Japanese art and literature. To compose a haiku, you need to work out on Japanese aesthetics previously. — javi2541997

Javi is Spanish
But his soul is Japanese
He is passionate

William James (sort of)

Is it true? Who cares?
What to do next is what's key
What's useful is true.

Welcome to the forum.

Although I suppose you could say hard problem depends on it being true. — FrancisRay

Unless, of course, the hard problem is metaphysical too. Let me think about it... I'm not sure, but it may be. For me, that ties in with the question of whether the hierarchies of scale are metaphysical too, which is something I've been thinking about for a while.

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. — FrancisRay

I'll save this as a great example of begging the question.

My point was that to confuse being ;scientific' with endorsing materialism is a serious error. — FrancisRay

Isn't that what I just said?

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness.
This is not a matter of opinion. What else could mysticism study when it teaches that everything is consciousness? . — FrancisRay

Of course it's a matter of opinion, your opinion. Here's what the dictionary says:

• Belief in direct experience of transcendent reality or God, especially by means of contemplation and asceticism instead of rational thought.
• Such experience had by an individual.
• Belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are directly accessible by subjective experience.

Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness.
This is not that case, as is noted by Kant. It studies the intellect, but not the source of the intellect. . — FrancisRay

Another matter of opinion. Again, from the web:

• The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
• The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity.
• Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another.

I'm using regular old common usage, i.e. the dictionary, as the source for what the words I use mean.

Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.
I'd say it depends on how you define 'introspection and how you practice it. — FrancisRay

Now you're just being difficult. Valid methods can be used badly.

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.
Yes it is, but it is also mysticism. Since Huxley's book under this title the phrase 'Perennial philosophy' and mysticism are synonyms. — FrancisRay

I'm not sure that's true and if it is, I don't understand how it's relevant to this discussion.

For Lao Tzu... consciousness and reality are the same phenomenon. . . — FrancisRay

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?

This seems correct to me. If a 'scientific explanation' is one that depends on materialism being true then it would be my view also. I'd say it's the only available sensible view. Unless we abandon our unnecessary and demonstrably absurd metaphysical views then we cannot explain consciousness, mind, matter or anything else. . — FrancisRay

Materialism is a metaphysical, not a factual, principle. Scientists don't have to be materialists in order to do science. Nothing "depends" on materialism being true.

As state it is, of course, a gross misuse of the term 'scientific'. — FrancisRay

If you are saying the current state of our understanding of consciousness cannot be considered scientific, I disagree. That's not to say there are not a lot of scientific issues yet to resolve.

To deny the existence of mysticism, which is the study of consciousness, is not just a profoundly unscientific way of avoiding the study of consciousness but a laughable one. — FrancisRay

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness. Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness. Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.

I would collect together every book that has ever been published that correctly explains the Perennial philosophy, and hire a fleet of trucks to deliver them to the science department with a note asking them to produce a scientific explanation for why all their authors agree with each other and why everything they say is irrefutable and in accord with modern science and how what they say allows us to solve all metaphysical problems and put the natural sciences on a solid fundamental foundation. They have no 'scientific' method for studying consciousness and discovering the reason, but it might make make them wonder, Would this count as empirical evidence? . . . . — FrancisRay

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.

Or if it’s not equivocating it’s at least not acknowledging the distinction as that makes the difference. — schopenhauer1

The only evidence we have that consciousness exists in anyone but ourselves is our observations of other's behavior. Perhaps that will change with all the new non-intrusive monitoring methods, but we're not there yet.

My position is that the hard problem is metaphysical, and that if this is not recognized then it is hard (intractable) for the reason Chalmers originally gives. As a metaphysical problem it is tractable but only when we abandon dualism. The same would go for all metaphysical problems. — FrancisRay

I agree with your more general comments about metaphysics, but I'm still uncertain about how others apply it to consciousness. I get the impression that hard problemers believe there is a specific, factual explanation for consciousness that is not approachable from a scientific point of view.

It can be studied scientifically. and Yoga is often described as a science, but not empirically. Lao Tzu makes no use of empiricism for his knowledge but explains it by saying 'I look inside myself and see'' He endorses the non-dual doctrine for which reality and consciousness are the same phenomenon and it is a unity, and this is how he can know about Tao and the 'ancient origin', the knowledge he calls the 'essence of Tao'. . . — FrancisRay

This seems like a good explanation to me. My point wasn't that Taoism was established empirically, but that it provides an effective metaphysical foundation for science. On the other hand, I've always seen introspection as a valid source of knowledge, so "I look inside myself and see," can be a credible statement of fact.

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this? Generally, academic researchers have to rely on second-hand reports. It is telling that scientists used to dismiss consciousness as non-existent for the sake of Behaviorism. This view arose because it cannot be studied empirically. Sometime round the 1980s they changed their mind and decided it did exist but I don't know what brought about this change of heart. It was not any new data. . — FrancisRay

Consciousness already is and always has been studied scientifically. Psychology can be characterized as the study of mind, including consciousness. Second-hand reports can be perfectly valid empirical data. Our own consciousness is the only one we have access to direct evidence for, at least so far. Also - what we call "consciousness", especially in others, is really behavior which we can study more or less objectively. Consciousness can also be studied by more nuts and bolts science as in cognitive science.

Banned Jack Rogozhin — Baden

Alas, he had some interesting things to say.

Not a criticism of the moderators.

Well, if that is the worst of the bunch, i've been far more courteous than some of my interlocutors who have accused me of being a Putin puppet... — Jack Rogozhin

Sorry, I shouldn't be lecturing you. I've been known to do that. It's just that I've really been enjoying this discussion and I didn't want it to turn into a mess.

However, if you can show me where I have been impugning motived and intentions instead of arguing the facts, I would gladly correct that — Jack Rogozhin

This is the worst of the bunch.

This is an outright lie. — Jack Rogozhin

Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

You've already bragged about not knowing much about philosophy. Now you've verified that by showing you don't know much about metaphysics either.

This has been an interesting and informative thread. Your input has been helpful and informative. But you're disrupting things. Stop impugning motives and intentions and argue the facts. It undermines your arguments.

And coup against America? France, definately yes, US perhaps not:

(REUTERS 10th Aug 2023) After ousting President Mohamed Bazoum from office on July 26 and placing him under house arrest, the junta revoked military cooperation agreements with France, which has between 1,000 and 1,500 troops in the country.

So far the United States has not received any request to remove its troops and does not have any indication that it will be forced to do so, said two U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity. — ssu

What is the role of US military in Niger?

China's interest in the Sahel (and in Africa in general) with it's Belt and Road Initiative is simply to get more customers for it's industry and enlarge it's infrastructure building beyond China. — ssu

So, is this iteration of the Great Game primarily an economic one, countries grabbing for markets? Is there still a military purpose, i.e. a struggle for political hegemony?

The below map — ssu

Do the flags represent military presence or just any sort of political or military involvement? What is the US's role in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

mercenaries from Wagner — ssu

Wagner seems to be everywhere. Are they considered an organ of the Russian military and foreign policy? If so, they are an unruly one.

Yes, I definitely agree. — Jack Rogozhin

If you think so, you must think the Maidan coup in Ukraine was evil to, no? — Jack Rogozhin

I've thought about that a lot, especially the US's role. Generally speaking, I consider the overthrow of a democratically elected government a bad thing. One thing is pretty certain, we wouldn't be having a war in the Ukraine if it hadn't happened and we wouldn't be as close to nuclear war as we are now.

It's because I endorse non-dualism and for this no problems arise. — FrancisRay

I'm confused. I've always considered the people who search for answers to the so-called hard problem of as the dualists. Looking back over your posts in this thread, you come down on the side of @schopenhauer1 and the rest of the hard problemers. Doesn't that make you a dualist? Or do I have the terminology mixed up?

You'll find that those who do not understand non-dualism do not understand metaphysics and as a consequence cannot make sense of consciousness. I would cite the whole of modern consciousness studies for evidence. I'm coming from somewhere else and endorse the explanations given by the Buddha, Lao Tzu.and Schrodinger, which are entirely ignored and usually unknown to most people working in modern consciousness studies. — FrancisRay

If you've read much of what I've written here on the forum, you've seen that a lot of my metaphysics is based on my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. I don't see any contradiction between that and a belief that consciousness can be fruitfully studied using science.

This wouldn't happen if you argued with me. — FrancisRay

Is that because you are so wise and articulate? I already spent three or four days discussing this with @Quixodian, @Patterner, and @schopenhauer1 before you started to participate. Those three are certainly capable of making the case. As I noted, this subject gets worn out pretty quickly. We've all made the same arguments before and will again.

I'm trying to decide whether our differences are matters of fact or metaphysics. I have a prejudice toward considering intractable questions as metaphysics, which allows me to put them aside without it feeling like I'm cheating, but I'm not sure here.

If science is not the correct method for studying consciousness, please describe a program of study that might be.