There's also the odd thing that it's not even true – it's like a robot shorting out and running a default message, even if it has nothing to do with what the interlocutor is actually saying. I mean, come on – 'a historical examination of the relation between rhetoric in the Athenian legal tradition as it relates to history? That's just more philosophy!' It's not even a coherent objection! — Snakes Alive
I wouldn't lose sleep if I was - I don't particularly care for the whack-a-mole, spot-a-fallacy vibe that's developing here & don't think avoiding snake's three is a constraint worth keeping ever in mind - but I think a close reading of what you've described as two and what my post says reveals a signficant difference. If you're settling into whacking, you're probably gonna get a lot of false positives for moles, its almost unavoidable.You're just doing #2, though. — Snakes Alive
I also suspect that the very idea of a syllogism, or any kind of deductive argument set out in premises that implies a conclusion, has its roots in courtroom procedure. People noticed in getting people to make statements, that multiple statements, due to their natural semantics, had commitment relations to each other, and noticed that if you said one thing, you then had to say another, on pain of contradiction. This then became a model of reasoning. — Snakes Alive
"Such is perhaps the most difficult challenge in a lockdown situation: to clear a space where to be on one’s own while already separated from the community. Being cooped up on a boat with a few others of course generates a feeling of estrangement, but estrangement is not solitude, and solitude is, in reality, what makes confinement bearable. And this is true even if one is already on one’s own. I noticed that what made my isolation extremely distressing was in fact my incapacity to withdraw into myself. To find this insular point where I could be my self (in two words). I am not talking here of authenticity, simply of this radical nakedness of the soul that allows to build a dwelling in one’s house, to make the house habitable by locating the psychic space where it is possible to do something, that is, in my case, write.
I noticed that writing only became possible when I reached such a confinement within confinement, a place in the place where nobody could enter and that at the same time was the condition for my exchanges with others. When I was able to get immersed in writing, conversations through Skype, for example, became something else. They were dialogues, not veiled monologues. Writing became possible when solitude started to protect me from isolation. One has to undress from all the coverings, clothes, curtains, masks, and meaningless chattering that still stick to one’s being when one is severed from others." — StreetlightX
You perhaps felt more acutely that we are just finding ways to occupy time, survive, maintain. Others who are used to routines and getting caught up in some sort of task, might have to be more introspective than they are used to. This causes mass existential questioning of life itself, purpose, and what the hell is the point of perpetuating it, maintaining it, dealing with it in the first place. Of course, existential reflection will just become a passing fad.. "That was so 2020" they might say.. Back to unreflective living it is. — schopenhauer1
On the positive side, as very introverted person the stay-at-home order has made my job much more comfortable and enjoyable. I'm eating healthier and exercising regularly. Obviously this is not the case for many people, especially those who have lost their jobs. Silver lining, I suppose. — darthbarracuda
gut take - I think April is going to be horrible. We're still at the beginning. It will get real, next month, when cases overwhelm hospitals. I think that will carry on into may and, at least, June. I think we'll all be collectively traumatized going into july. My guess, as of now, is August will be when things will start kind of adjusting to normal (where 'normal' means merely 'not a disaster') (obviously this is all wild speculation, but thats my spur of the moment reaction)Joining the conversation late so perhaps this has already been discussed; where I live there is a statewide quarantine until mid-April since last week, and I have been working from home since the week before. I suspect the stay at home order will be extended. Others I have talked to have predicted the same, but for how long seems to be up in the air. Some have said May, others June, and still other September and even November. Mid-April seems too early, but to extend it to November seems impossible to enforce and will tank the economy in ways that will ultimately hurt more people than the coronavirus itself would.
What do people on here think? When do you expect things will begin to go back to "normal"? — darthbarracuda
That said, technically all capitalism is state capitalism, as Polyani pointed out long ago. — StreetlightX
One of my favorite albums. Are you familiar with Spencer Krug's work in Frog Eyes? — ZzzoneiroCosm
...through the process of apperception whereby the mind relates particulars to classes and categories. That kind of analysis even filters through into phenomenology and indeed cognitive science (there's such a topic as 'Kantian cognitive science'.)
Think of it as underlying the structure of consciousness - the means by which knowledge organises itself into categories and intelligible relations. Then you begin to see more clearly the relationship of thought with the intelligible order - that mind grasps the ideas of things, whereas the senses grasp their material form to create a coherent whole (coherent meaning 'holding together').
Where it's very difficult for us moderns to grasp, is that for us, the 'ideas' are identified as the activities of the brain, which itself is the product of evolutionary biology. So 'ideas' can't have any foundational reality if they're understood in those terms - they're a product, not a cause. Somehow - we presume according to broadly Darwinian principles - the capacity for ideas emerge in response to the requirements of natural selection. However I find that attitude irreducibly reductionist. — Wayfarer
I think that the magnitude of the attention-seeking is important, normal people normally seek attention from their surroundings - the poeple they interact with -, whereas philoshophers seek attention from the whole, which is normal, if you think of it, since philosophy, traditionally speaking, has to do with the whole: philosophers do not speak to normal or common people, but to this notion of the whole. Whoever undestands this, is on the same page with them, whoever not, is considered inadequate or simply not ready yet. — Pussycat
A form is what makes a thing 'this thing' as apart from 'that thing' - it confers identity. Whereas matter itself is indeterminate, it's simply the primal stuff which, until it 'receives' form, is not intelligible, because it has no kind, resemblance, principle, etc. Bear in mind, Aristotle's 'hyle' is derived from 'timber' i.e. 'that from which things are made or carved'; so it doesn't correspond with 'matter' in the modern sense of the elements of the periodic table. — Wayfarer
But yeah, let us entertain that thought, that philosophers are no truth seekers, no wisdom seekers either, that truth and wisdom are in fact myths promulgated by them, because in essence what they really are is attention seekers, what say you sally? — Pussycat
You're always asking for personal solutions to transpersonal problems. I don't have any answers for you. I don't have any answers for any particular people, and I am in no position to offer them. Here I just normalize a certain discourse, make it stock standard and create an atmosphere - make the obvious unobvious and the unobvious obvious. You do whatever you want or can. — StreetlightX
By 'will', we normally think of what we want to do, but I think it is what we think is right, right to do, right in an absolute sense. When we are absolutely certain that a course of action, or thinking, was the correct one and could not be otherwise. But when we ponder on the same situation and think otherwise, then this conflict of wills becomes evident. — Pussycat
But philosophically speaking, a lot of philosophers take the I to be a representation of the will, or Will, and to be one and only. And so there is this notion of "my will", pointing to something definite, if not quite. But of course, if there is a multiplicity of I's or Will's, then it makes no sense to talk that way. — Pussycat
There is this thing called the 'I', as in an I for an I, for long thought to be one and in unity with itself. But then came Nietzsche and said that this I is not a simple, but a multiplicity of things. Anway, what do those untimely meditations of yours have to say? — Pussycat
I haven't spoken to so many strangers as I have in recent days, spontaneously, while going about things. Although that will probably change as we've just gone into partial lockdown here. But yes, there's a definite sense of concern for one another that's kind of hard to fathom as being in place at any other time. My dream is that this sense of mutual care gets translated into our ways of social organization, and prompts us to rethink what and how we value things as a society. There is, among all this horribleness, an opportunity to use that 'shimmer' as a window into that better world, I wish we knew how to take it. — StreetlightX