Where does philosophy come from?

[cotner]

What do you think of this definition?

Philosophy is the attempt by man to explain his relationship to the universe, and the relation of one thing to another.

 

I thought that I had come to a definition of philosophy which I still think is the best and most versatile and most prolific description of philosophy.

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

If you read anywhere under any name something like my definition of philosophy, above, then it is from me, here called cotner, or from people who have heard me or read me.

 

 

What do you guys here say about my definition, which also explains where philosophy comes from.

 

 

In this respect of my definition, animals like our home pets dogs and cats also do philosophy when they seek to determine the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything, starting with their masters, humans, at home who feed them and love them and they in return manifest closeness to their masters.

 

That kind of philosophy is what I call close-sighted philosophy; with humans we go for much much more far-sighted philosophy, asking or probing or determining the question even of what is the beginning of being, and my answer is being has always been there, being IS, and we all are parts and parcels of being.

 

So there is no sense in asking about the beginning of being. The question should be directed to any particular form of being, like you and me, and the answer is we have our beginnings from our parents.

 

You will ask me then, and our parents? from their parents of course. Are we not diving then into infinite regression? No, not necessarily, because the beginning of all beginnings is being; and the question then is how being transformed itself into all forms of being.

 

And the most to our human knowledge complex and in a way perfect -- in our human estimation, is the form of being we are, humans.

 

 

cotner

 

Philosophy is the attempt by man to explain his relationship to the universe, and the relation of one thing to another. -- questor

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning. -- cotner

 

 

Dear questor, allow me to congratulate you for producing a definition of philosophy that is more concise than mine, and that satisfies my criteria of BEC: in brief, easy, comprehensible words to man in the street.

 

Now, if you still want to continue our dialogue in this thread of "Where does philosophy come from?" since the author, coberst, does not care to work out a better title on the basis of his own posts here, perhaps we can work together to think and come up with one, a better title to the thread.

 

Let's read the first post introducing the topic of the thread by coberst the author, and first see whether the title as presented is pertinent to his thoughts right at the start of his thread with his first introduction post.

 

Here read his first post, I will not reproduce it here because it will take up again as with my reproduction above of my first post in this thread earlier more bandwidth.

 

"Folk theories" and common sense" could be a better title, I would imagine, because coberst is asking readers to react to what he read in Lakoff and Johnson's account of folk theories which to my impression, folk theories that is, are what people in the street, who are intelligent and do think, might see in brief time, easily, and comprehensively to be common sense.

 

 

I just want people who start a new thread to choose a title that will be specifically cornered and narrowed down, so that we readers can react to it, like as if we are shooting at the same target, not shooting indiscriminately up into the sky, and not even bothering oneself about the slugs that are diving down with accelerating speed to kill anything that moves below with feet planted on the earth.

 

 

cotner

[questor]

I think philosophy started when a human progenitor saw a lightning bolt or heard thunder, turned to Barf and said: What the hell was that? Ever since then we have been trying to come up with scientific or logical ideas for everything. We know there were and are many schools of philosophy and some of the ideas served as a basis for our current society. I would be a little reluctant to hash over the different schools of philosophy ( which information is readily available) , because the knowing is rapidly replacing the guessing and the knowing is the important part. If you're going to philosophize at this point in time, what would it be about?

[cotner]

I think philosophy started when a human progenitor saw a lightning bolt or heard thunder, turned to Barf and said: What the hell was that? Ever since then we have been trying to come up with scientific or logical ideas for everything. We know there were and are many schools of philosophy and some of the ideas served as a basis for our current society. I would be a little reluctant to hash over the different schools of philosophy ( which information is readily available) , because the knowing is rapidly replacing the guessing and the knowing is the important part. If you're going to philosophize at this point in time, what would it be about?

 

If you're going to philosophize at this point in time, what would it be about?

Honestly I would still be searching for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything, starting with myself, using my reasoning capacity.

 

If science can tell me what is the programming, etc., from the laboratory, then that should be very good for my concern.

 

Very good for my concern, meaning that is what I like to hear, so that I will feel better, knowing that there is a programming of the most ultimate frontiers of existence.

 

But scientists themselves tell us that they are restricting themselves to only things which are accessible to their senses even with just the use of instruments, but in the last analysis passing through their eyes, ears, skin, nose, or tongue.

 

Do we have to want to feel better? For myself I say yes!

 

If others don't want to feel better, I will just say this to them, keep out of my presence, but you can write all you want to about how you have no want and no right to feel better, and I will read your writing but make it BEC, brief, easy, and comprehensible.

 

Then if these people who don't want to feel better except by writing about not feeling better, if they can use their brain cells to suggest ways and means for people like myself to feel better, instead of groaning and moaning all the time about not wanting to feel better and not having any entitlement to feel better and not seeing any reason to feel better, if they at least have this suspicion of being helpful starting with their wives and kids, if they have any -- and my sympathies to their wives and kids, if they at least have this suspicion and possess operative brain cells, then I invite them to do some thinking along the line of helping people like myself to discover more ways and means to feel better.

 

 

What is the most quintessential thing that will make me feel so very very much better? The idea that one day I can live forever and thereby be always around to witness everything. Sad to say, that is an impossibility at present; in which case the thought that one day scientific engineers can bring me back from the realm of death oblivion and restore me to life whereby I can be aware that I was that cotner and have that identity, from that point I would resume my interrupted life and existence.

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

I know nothing about Eastern philosophy/religion.

 

Following are three basic assumptions about which most people in the Western democracies accept as common sense although few would recognize that acceptance without some help.

 

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

 

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World

The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

 

The Folk Theory of General Kinds

Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

 

The Folk Theory of Essences

Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

 

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

 

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics

Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

 

 

For myself and for humans who are the only ones discoursing on the assumptions of knowledge, I would state that the first assumption of metaphysics is that you and I exist and we can ascertain our mutual existence by pinching each other's nose, and thereby also know that we are distinct.

 

By assumption I mean a proposition taken for granted in the sense that we don't dispute about it, and don' see the need to prove its verity except for a pastime.

 

The most all embracing assumption in this sense is that we exist outside our minds; from that first proposition of an assumption we can start to discourse and dispute and discover about everything else that has existence or non-existence.

 

 

Cognitive science seems to be going all over town just to prove that we exist, and that should be a not ever to be questioned assumption; when since humans are the only ones who are the case in discourse about assumptions, the simple route is just to pinch your nose to know you exist, and pinch your neighbor's nose to make him know that he also exists outside his mind and your mind, and that you both exist; and from that point onward you or we both can prosecute further our communication about the assumptions at the base of all knowledge.

 

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

Cognitive science seems to be going all over town just to prove that we exist, and that should be a not ever to be questioned assumption; when since humans are the only ones who are the case in discourse about assumptions, the simple route is just to pinch your nose to know you exist, and pinch your neighbor's nose to make him know that he also exists outside his mind and your mind, and that you both exist;

Scientifically, what you say is true, but it is not true philosophically. Scientifically, it is pointless questioning whether our subjective experiences are the result of an objective world that exists outside our experience of it. It gets you nowhere. So we take it as an axiom that the universe exists, and there is no need to question that.

 

Philosophically, that is not sufficient. We cannot assume that the universe exists outside of our experience of it, because there is no way we can objectively prove that. So, unfortunately (or fortunately if you don't like having your nose pinched), your simple test fails:

• There is no need to pinch your own nose to prove that you exist. Merely thinking of pinching your nose (or just thinking) is sufficient proof.
  
• Pinching your neighbour's nose proves nothing:
  • If he is just a figment of your imagination, pinching his nose makes him no more real. It could all be taking place in your imagination.
    
  • Whereas, if you are just a figment of his imagination, pinching his nose does not prove that you exist. It could all be taking place in his imagination.

So it is fundamentally impossible to prove that anything exists outside yourself. This is a matter of considerable importance to me, because, a one time, I doubted that the universe objectively existed. But I eventually found good reasons for believing that the univese exists objectively, even though I can't prove it:

• Occasionally when I met someone's eyes, I knew there was an intelligent being behind those eyes.
  
• There is so much man-made technology, that I only superficially understand, that I believe that others exist who understand it better than I do. I could not make those things.

Now, I'd repeat, these are not proofs, but to me they are better indicators than going round pinching noses :rolleyes:

[questor]

Human beings are blessed with senses. These senses make us aware of color, texture, odor and all the other qualities in the universe that surround us. Since we can see planets, the sun and other people, and other people can sense the same things and describe them in like manner, we can logically deduce we live in a universe. Ancient art, literature and history show objects that existed epochs ago that resemble what we see today. If one wants to question his own existence, or that of the universe it would be difficult to make that argument. It has been made before...it was useless then and is useless now. Why waste the time, the answer will not improve your life.

[cotner]

Human beings are blessed with senses. These senses make us aware of color, texture, odor and all the other qualities in the universe that surround us. Since we can see planets, the sun and other people, and other people can sense the same things and describe them in like manner, we can logically deduce we live in a universe. Ancient art, literature and history show objects that existed epochs ago that resemble what we see today. If one wants to question his own existence, or that of the universe it would be difficult to make that argument. It has been made before...it was useless then and is useless now. Why waste the time, the answer will not improve your life.

 

 

If one wants to question his own existence, or that of the universe it would be difficult to make that argument. It has been made before...it was useless then and is useless now. Why waste the time, the answer will not improve your life.

 

Unless people become insane in the sense of losing contact with reality and start acting out their uncertainty of their own existence and that of others, in which case life is impossible for them or absurd in their living of it, I have the very clear suspicion [sic] that the questioning of one's own existence is just for a pastime, for fun.

 

So, the last question to test whether a human is just having fun, into a pastime, or really lethally and insanely serious in doubting his own existence and that of others, is to observe whether he starts acting different from other humans and animals.

 

In which case he has no business in society or among other humans who do not lethally doubt their existence and the existence of everything else outside their minds.

 

Since time immemorial the vast majority of fellow humans avoid these characters or deranged specimens, and animals like dogs and cats know enough not to relate to much less with them.

 

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

 

Posted by cotner

Cognitive science seems to be going all over town just to prove that we exist, and that should be a not ever to be questioned assumption; when since humans are the only ones who are the case in discourse about assumptions, the simple route is just to pinch your nose to know you exist, and pinch your neighbor's nose to make him know that he also exists outside his mind and your mind, and that you both exist;

 

Scientifically, what you say is true, but it is not true philosophically. Scientifically, it is pointless questioning whether our subjective experiences are the result of an objective world that exists outside our experience of it. It gets you nowhere. So we take it as an axiom that the universe exists, and there is no need to question that.

 

Philosophically, that is not sufficient. We cannot assume that the universe exists outside of our experience of it, because there is no way we can objectively prove that. So, unfortunately (or fortunately if you don't like having your nose pinched), your simple test fails:

• There is no need to pinch your own nose to prove that you exist. Merely thinking of pinching your nose (or just thinking) is sufficient proof.
  
• Pinching your neighbour's nose proves nothing:
  • If he is just a figment of your imagination, pinching his nose makes him no more real. It could all be taking place in your imagination.
    
  • Whereas, if you are just a figment of his imagination, pinching his nose does not prove that you exist. It could all be taking place in his imagination.

So it is fundamentally impossible to prove that anything exists outside yourself. This is a matter of considerable importance to me, because, a one time, I doubted that the universe objectively existed. But I eventually found good reasons for believing that the univese exists objectively, even though I can't prove it:

• Occasionally when I met someone's eyes, I knew there was an intelligent being behind those eyes.
  
• There is so much man-made technology, that I only superficially understand, that I believe that others exist who understand it better than I do. I could not make those things.

Now, I'd repeat, these are not proofs, but to me they are better indicators than going round pinching noses ;)

 

I wished, jedaisoul, that you would not disappear with any convenient reason you think yourself as justifying your disappearance, when I am getting very close to come to some conciliation with you over an issue.

 

I am aware that we are all having fun or a pastime here, even though in the process at least for some of us like yours truly we hope to read something personal from others which will in my case at least make me feel better.

 

So far you have not made me feel better -- of course you don't seem to care about that; at least try to acquire the habitual skill of not disappearing, just hang around and if you have nothing further to add to an exchange except that you are just keeping a thread going on with another supposedly useless post from your part, simply do an exit by uttering "I am out of here, it's no fun here for me any longer."

 

-------------------

 

Now, I'd repeat, these are not proofs, but to me they are better indicators than going round pinching noses ;) -- jedaisoul

 

You think that there are better indicators than pinching noses for in your own case believing that we exist and there is an objective universe outside our minds?

 

Suppose now you just repeat in fifty words or less what those indicators are and how they are better than pinching noses.

 

 

And don't disappear again.

 

 

 

cotner

[VS Prasad]

The Hindu Upanishads are philosophy texts which are part of Vedas.

 

Upanishad - Search.com

 

The Rig Veda is now accepted by western scholars as 8000 years old.

 

Rig Veda - Search.com

 

Upanishad means the inner or mystic teaching. The term Upanishad is derived from upa (near), ni (down) and s(h)ad (to sit), i.e., sitting down near. Groups of pupils sit near the teacher to learn from him the secret doctrine. In the quietude of the forest hermitages the Upanishad thinkers pondered on the problems of deepest concerns and communicated their knowledge to fit pupils near them. Samkara derives the word Upanishad as a substitute from the root sad, 'to loosen.,' 'to reach' or 'to destroy' with Upa and ni as prefixes and kvip as termination. If this determination is accepted, upanishad means brahma-knowledge by which ignorance is loosened or destroyed. The treatises that deal with brahma-knowledge are called the Upanishads and so pass for the Vedanta (philosophy). The different derivations together make out that the Upanishads give us both spiritual vision and philosophical argument. There is a core of certainty which is essentially incommunicable except by a way of life. It is by a strictly personal effort that one can reach the truth.

 

Upanishads

 

Ancient Hindu Sastras say that the Upanishads were written along with

the Vedas some 4 billions of years ago.

[jedaisoul]

I am aware that we are all having fun or a pastime here, even though in the process at least for some of us like yours truly we hope to read something personal from others which will in my case at least make me feel better. So far you have not made me feel better -- of course you don't seem to care about that;

I would suggest that the "Louge" or "Water Cooler" might be more appropriate places on this site to have the sort of discussion you seem to desire.

 

at least try to acquire the habitual skill of not disappearing, just hang around and if you have nothing further to add to an exchange except that you are just keeping a thread going on with another supposedly useless post from your part, simply do an exit by uttering "I am out of here, it's no fun here for me any longer."

I have no wish to make comments when I have nothing worthwhile to say, and I doubt that others would thank me for doing so either.

 

Now, I'd repeat, these are not proofs, but to me they are better indicators than going round pinching noses ;) -- jedaisoul

 

You think that there are better indicators than pinching noses for in your own case believing that we exist and there is an objective universe outside our minds?

 

Suppose now you just repeat in fifty words or less what those indicators are and how they are better than pinching noses.

I already did, in 46 words.

 

And don't disappear again.

If you want me to contribute to a thread, then you need to say something that calls for a comment from me. The simplest way of doing that is by positing an alternative view to one that I have stated, or by questioning my meaning.

 

Anyway, I wish you a happy Christmas, and I hope that you find a convivial place to have the sort of conversation that you seek.

[cotner]

The Hindu Upanishads are philosophy texts which are part of Vedas.

 

Upanishad - Search.com

 

The Rig Veda is now accepted by western scholars as 8000 years old.

 

Rig Veda - Search.com

 

Upanishad means the inner or mystic teaching. The term Upanishad is derived from upa (near), ni (down) and s(h)ad (to sit), i.e., sitting down near. Groups of pupils sit near the teacher to learn from him the secret doctrine. In the quietude of the forest hermitages the Upanishad thinkers pondered on the problems of deepest concerns and communicated their knowledge to fit pupils near them. Samkara derives the word Upanishad as a substitute from the root sad, 'to loosen.,' 'to reach' or 'to destroy' with Upa and ni as prefixes and kvip as termination. If this determination is accepted, upanishad means brahma-knowledge by which ignorance is loosened or destroyed. The treatises that deal with brahma-knowledge are called the Upanishads and so pass for the Vedanta (philosophy). The different derivations together make out that the Upanishads give us both spiritual vision and philosophical argument. There is a core of certainty which is essentially incommunicable except by a way of life. It is by a strictly personal effort that one can reach the truth.

 

Upanishads

 

Ancient Hindu Sastras say that the Upanishads were written along with

the Vedas some 4 billions of years ago.

 

Hi Prasad:

 

I am not the author of this thread, the author is no longer appearing here for reasons of his own which I don't know; but I would prefer that he should return, which of course is not a wish that can be granted for sure by the author as he is a free agent.

 

You have given a quotation from a website.

 

It is my desire to read personal writings of people here; so if I may, please draft whatever you think important to you and also for me to know, in fifty words or less, the ideas in your quotation.

 

 

I am starting a new thread of my own, on indicators of reality, something like that; no, that word indicators is not from me, but look for the new thread and join in.

 

 

What I want to read in web forums are personal thoughts of posters in their own personally written words; because if posters are just going to repeat the thoughts of others already available in print but specially for our convenience in websites, then there is no need for them to reproduce quotations here -- unless a text is reproduced for the purpose of evidence that so and so said this or that, or for us to jointly seek to understand what is bugging the author by examining his words.

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

 

I would suggest that the "Louge" or "Water Cooler" might be more appropriate places on this site to have the sort of discussion you seem to desire.

 

[...]

 

 

 

I am trying to draft a title for a new thread which I like you to join me in; you use the word indicators in reference to your knowledge of the objective universe, which word I believe can be included in my title for a new thread, "Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses."

 

Please proceed to that thread and we can have fun investigating your indicators of reality which are better for you than pinching noses.

 

 

 

cotner