So, as I was reading through the Philosophy toolkit, I noticed several things. Philosophy seems very logical. That might be a kind of dull, thoughtless remark. But I always thought of philosophy as having radical and revolutionizing ideas and not being so mathematical. I have no problem with this; everyone needs logic in their lives, but I am quite sure there were many 19th century Russian ideologies that were most radical and punishable at the time. I would love to explore the calmer side of philosophy where ideas are presented almost as equations but with multiple answers and completely radical ideas that may follow a kind of equation but sound absurd or different to some.
I saw the Intellectual Virtues section and after reading them, I thought that these ideas are kind of contrary to human nature. Not everyone can be a highly reasonable person, in fact, I find it quite absurd to be so. I myself am not a perfect, reasonable person and I doubt I ever will be; I would never wish to be either. I would feel caged living by habits set down and not being able to make my own mind about situations. I am not an anarchist. I don't want complete annihilation of laws, but I do advocate freedom of thought and emotion.
And I wondered reading these that most philosophers must be rich and live in the upper classes because these do not sound like the qualities of someone who is barely making end's meet. I do not suggest that people who have less financial income are any less human or any less cultured or honorable, but I do understand that these set of habits are for the "perfect person" as I mentioned before. Someone working hard to make money, maybe support their family and friends, cannot contemplate all these things at once. Perhaps they have another method for coping with stress, like art or music. Sometimes the absence of thought is the most blissful, beautiful thing that can be achieved by a human being.
The Logical Terms and Informal Fallacies sections made me chuckle a couple of times because I just saw how simple the ideas and equations were. But I think that this logic must be brought to a higher level in order for it to be interesting and thought-provoking. Additionally, I would love to debate idealism and realism because I have my own imaginative mind and I am creative about the world I live in.
I don't agree with knowledge being a "justified true belief," in philosophy or any other domain or discipline. Knowledge is thought. I think that God exists but some people do not know that for certain. What if I saw ghosts but no one else did, like Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost? Would my seeing those ghosts be a true belief? For me, yes, or maybe no. Maybe I would be skeptical of myself and others would surely not believe me.
Thought is a very careful thing....
Interesting thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI suspect you are the right track when saying there is not one ultimate truth and therefore way of life or behavior you can apply to everyone. Such questions must be based on life-situation. Your obligation to help others, for instance, grows with your ability to do so.
I would be careful, however, in saying that logic is not capable of this, or indeed, incapable of being revolutionary or incorporating emotions or progressive thought. In my mind, a logical argument will pull in such aspects as well.
Note also, not every thought you have is knowledge. You can think quite un-true things, such as conjuring the idea of a pink, invisible unicorn. Knowledge is when your thought reflects the way the world is. Though I will add that we may not always be able to say what thoughts we have are actual "knowledge" and what are just incomplete or simply wrong assumptions.
However, what if the world I see is not the world that you or someone else sees. For example, if you see a black wall which is, in reality, black, but I am insane and see a red wall, then is my perception invalid? Is there some omnipotent, omnipresent entity that can say what color the wall really is? Or maybe we are both wrong and there is no wall there.
DeleteIf you are insane, and that insanity affects how you perceive the wall, then yes, your perception is invalid.
DeleteI would not assume that there is or needs to be a omnipotent or omnipresent being for an objective reality to exist. I think science helps us determine what a wall is, what it is made of, what color it has to us.
I find color is a problematic notion when invoking truth, though. No object is actually colored. They all just reflect light in a certain way and when you turn off the light source, the object no longer reflects light, therefore no longer seems colored.
Also, I don't find that discussing ideas of the reality available to us as being fallacious is a very useful thing to do. First of all, the most simple explanation is that our reality does exist. Secondly, even if we could prove the world is fictional, it's not like we could change anything about it, we still have to live our lives in it and deal with the consequences of our actions and those of others.
I think the point I am trying to make is that every single person views the visible world as he or she would like to see it. Of course, this is all hypothetical. I believe that the world around me is touchable but I keep in mind that it could be a dream.
Delete