Real versus Ideal

[coberst]

Real versus Ideal

 

If we want to understand our self and our world we will necessarily have to learn some bit of philosophy and psychology. We become interested in philosophy when we begin to ask questions that go to the ‘root’ of all matters and we turn to psychology if we want to comprehend why humans do the things we do.

 

It appears to me that psychology would say that we are essentially creatures of desire rather than creatures of contemplation; not because we do not have the brain power but because we do not have the courage to throw away our traditional security blanket and face the world with a critical eye.

 

Descartes’ legacy to all of us via philosophy can be labeled, I think, as rationalism (discovery of truth through pure reason), dichotomy (mind/body split), and certainty. Even though very few of us know anything about philosophy, almost everything we think results from the philosophy we inherit through social osmosis (unconscious assimilation). Philosophy theory permeates almost all of our mental gymnastics without our conscious recognition.

 

In the Gettysburg Address Lincoln developed, in just a few words, his answer to the cognitive conflict between what America displayed in the Constitution as the real law of the land versus the Declaration of Independence that represents an ideal to which all men can embrace as an ideal of government.

 

The Constitution establishes a real set of principles defining a real government of, for, and by the people which does, in fact, not meet the ideal specified in the Declaration of Independence. That document, The Declaration of Independence, sets the ideal that all men and women are born equal and must be considered so in that light by a proper government.

 

It appears to me that we sapiens need a ‘value North Star’ upon which to fix our voyage. We need a reference point upon which we can focus our attention when trying to determine what of value we can and should do in life.

 

Religion, or God, serves as the ‘value North Star’ for some people; for others it is nationalism; for others, that fix is to own as much good stuff as possible; to others it is power; for some it is family; and I guess there are many other such ultimate values.

 

The ideal is something that we strive for and the real is something that we have created.

 

We need an ideal upon which to focus and to strive for. I think that Lincoln has furnished us with that ideal that has been set forth in the Declaration and the question becomes how well have we followed that North Star and are we gaining or loosing ground in that endeavor.

 

I think we are losing ground and if we citizens do not become more alert and responsible we may suffer severe consequences not because we lack the brain power but because we lack the will to be all we can be.

 

Someone said that only one person in a thousand ever “strikes at the root”. I do not think a liberal democracy in a hi-tech world can survive if such remains to be true. Hi-tech gives us the ability to easily destroy our self and our world; liberal democracy makes all citizens to be sovereign and thus responsible in some small way for the integrity of our existence.

 

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think our species may have a very limited engagement on this planet. I think that we must become much more intellectually sophisticated than we are now and I do not expect that our educational systems can help us much in that effort. We must become independent learners.

 

I think that philosophy permeates all avenues of our life, do you agree?

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I would agree completely. The problem lies in the fact that many scientists consider philosophy to not only be useless, but actually destructive. They consider it to be a waste of intellectual talent. I find philosophy to be the greatest treasure one can obtain.

 

I believe the ideal world to be one where all humans care more about their neighbor than themselves. Where they WANT to be part of the bigger picture, not just a spark of life that proved it could gain more than the next. A true seperation from ego, and a unification of the single consciousness.

 

But to get there, you have to be realistic. I believe a middle of the road approach works well in this situation as well as all others. A well balanced sense of realism and idealism is needed to push forward.

[wigglieverse]

I asked a guy on another forum (after he'd posted a comment about "if I become a scientist"), if he thought Philosophy could be scientific. He replied that he hadn't ever considered the possibility.

I pointed out that no-one can claim to be on one side or the other, because everyone is both. No reply, but it does illustrate that scientists believe sitting aound and thinking can't be very productive (you have to do experiments). This is perceived as the big difference between the two, but what Scientist doesn't think about the implications of their work? What Philosopher ignores science?

It's a non-sequitur, because anyone who claims to not be one or the other is deluding themselves (IMO).

[coberst]

I asked a guy on another forum (after he'd posted a comment about "if I become a scientist"), if he thought Philosophy could be scientific. He replied that he hadn't ever considered the possibility.

I pointed out that no-one can claim to be on one side or the other, because everyone is both. No reply, but it does illustrate that scientists believe sitting aound and thinking can't be very productive (you have to do experiments). This is perceived as the big difference between the two, but what Scientist doesn't think about the implications of their work? What Philosopher ignores science?

It's a non-sequitur, because anyone who claims to not be one or the other is deluding themselves (IMO).

 

 

What does it mean to be scientific?

 

A question that is difficult to answer, very important, and misunderstood by the vast majority of the population. That might be a very worthwhile topic for your next OP.

[wigglieverse]

What does it mean to be scientific?

This would appear to be the crux, if you will, upon which the whole philo/scientia issue hangs. My point is that intellect does not exist independently of emotion, also surely (despite stoical "philosophy"), an intellect isn't, and can't be, turned entirely to its own end...? We must use some of it to ponder philosophical conundrums, and perceptions. In other words, neither is really a separate 'discipline', but they are a symmetrical, a dual face of the same intellect/emotion 'character'...

[coberst]

This would appear to be the crux, if you will, upon which the whole philo/scientia issue hangs. My point is that intellect does not exist independently of emotion, also surely (despite stoical "philosophy"), an intellect isn't, and can't be, turned entirely to its own end...? We must use some of it to ponder philosophical conundrums, and perceptions. In other words, neither is really a separate 'discipline', but they are a symmetrical, a dual face of the same intellect/emotion 'character'...

 

Yes, I agree.

 

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

 

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

 

The three major findings of cognitive science are:

The mind is inherently embodied.

Thought is mostly unconscious.

Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

 

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

 

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

 

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

 

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

 

P.S If we take a big bite out of reality we will, I think, find that it is multilayered like the onion. There are many domains of knowledge available to us for penetrating those layers of reality. Cognitive science is one that I find to be very interesting.

[wigglieverse]

The Western Philosophical model -the ideal intellect- is an otherwise independent faculty, able to 'float' somehow above or beyond the reach of the 'container", which is the seat of intellect, but 'bathes' it in disturbing or perturbing 'emotion' and feeling. Such are the distractions the stoical philosopher must avoid (Newton, e.g. was a dedicated man, he forbade any 'distractions', including women and other 'emotional' issues, training his mind to focus on matters of greater weight -to him at least. Perhaps history might have been different if he had succumbed to his 'lustful' tendencies and married).