My Quest To Understand.

[pljames]

In my quest to understand philosophy and the sub disciplines it seems hard because of the many ways people have to understand each other disciplines and harder with the sub discipline philosophies and beliefs. Since I see (a) and you see (B) and others see © how is it possible to understand others when each understanding is different? Is original philosophy still original if we morph it into our own personal understanding of the original? Is the word wisdom understood singular or multiple? You have your understanding and I have mine. But does that cloud the original meaning for one person?

 

Do I have to search and find a sub-discipline that works for me and that's my philosophy? To me philosophy seems to be individual beliefs for each person. It would seem my singular understanding of one philosophy that encompasses whatever sub disciplines I choose would be better than trying to understand many philosophies called sub-disciplines. Take for example the words love and truth. One definition is better then multiple definitions. What is gained by multiple definitions of one thought called philosophy? pljames/Paul

[Rade]

In my quest to understand philosophy and the sub disciplines it seems hard because of the many ways people have to understand each other disciplines and harder with the sub discipline philosophies and beliefs. Since I see (a) and you see (B) and others see © how is it possible to understand others when each understanding is different?

I enjoy reading your post. Here are my thoughts to the many questions you ask.

 

You see (a), I see (B), others see © and all look at the same thing (0). So, how can there be any understanding of (O) by all ? Suppose a superposition of the thing by each, thus you see (a)-O, I see (B)-O, and others see ©-O. Clearly, all must agree on one thing, that (O) EXISTS. Now, this may not look to be very informative but it is the starting point of all philosophy....to start with the axiom that (O) EXISTS ! And here we find the purpose of philosophy itself, it is the science that studies WHAT EXISTS and HOW HUMANS KNOW IT.

 

Is original philosophy still original if we morph it into our own personal understanding of the original?

Sure. If I mix green paint with red paint it forms a new understanding of color called brown. The original colors remain original because when the question is asked' date=' how did you come to create brown ?... you must answer by reference to the two original colors.

 

Is the word wisdom understood singular or multiple? You have your understanding and I have mine. But does that cloud the original meaning for one person?

From the dictionary we see that the word wisdom is understood (e.g, defined) in multiple ways. The original meaning of the word is not clouded because that meaning is always correct in the context in which it was originally presented. Here we see the very important difference between a CONCEPT (such as wisdom) and how it is DEFINED. Any concept can have multiple definitions that can change over time as new information is gained. The key point is that new definitions of concepts can never contradict those that already exist...a new concept must be formed if this is not possible.

 

Do I have to search and find a sub-discipline that works for me and that's my philosophy?

NO' date=' you must find what works for all humans and let that be YOUR philosophy, for then what works for you works for everyone. Kant called this the Categorical Imperative and I am not aware of any logical argument to falsify claim of Kant.

 

To me philosophy seems to be individual beliefs for each person.

Nothing could be further from the truth of what philosophy OUGHT to be, and nothing closer to the truth than what philosophy IS.

 

It would seem my singular understanding of one philosophy that encompasses whatever sub disciplines I choose would be better than trying to understand many philosophies called sub-disciplines. Take for example the words love and truth. One definition is better then multiple definitions. What is gained by multiple definitions of one thought called philosophy?

What is gained is a more valid and reasonable understanding of the concepts called love and truth. Again, there is nothing wrong with multiple definitions of the same concept as long as secondary definitions do not contradict the original.

 

Well, perhaps you not agree with anything I post above, welcome to philosophy ! You may enjoy the book by Ayn Rand called 'Philosophy: Who Needs It'

[pljames]

understanding,

Excellent answer. Thanks. Paul

 

I enjoy reading your post. Here are my thoughts to the many questions you ask.

 

You see (a), I see (B), others see © and all look at the same thing (0). So, how can there be any understanding of (O) by all ? Suppose a superposition of the thing by each, thus you see (a)-O, I see (B)-O, and others see ©-O. Clearly, all must agree on one thing, that (O) EXISTS. Now, this may not look to be very informative but it is the starting point of all philosophy....to start with the axiom that (O) EXISTS ! And here we find the purpose of philosophy itself, it is the science that studies WHAT EXISTS and HOW HUMANS KNOW IT.

 

Sure. If I mix green paint with red paint it forms a new understanding of color called brown. The original colors remain original because when the question is asked, how did you come to create brown ?... you must answer by reference to the two original colors.

 

From the dictionary we see that the word wisdom is understood (e.g, defined) in multiple ways. The original meaning of the word is not clouded because that meaning is always correct in the context in which it was originally presented. Here we see the very important difference between a CONCEPT (such as wisdom) and how it is DEFINED. Any concept can have multiple definitions that can change over time as new information is gained. The key point is that new definitions of concepts can never contradict those that already exist...a new concept must be formed if this is not possible.

 

NO, you must find what works for all humans and let that be YOUR philosophy, for then what works for you works for everyone. Kant called this the Categorical Imperative and I am not aware of any logical argument to falsify claim of Kant.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth of what philosophy OUGHT to be, and nothing closer to the truth than what philosophy IS.

 

What is gained is a more valid and reasonable understanding of the concepts called love and truth. Again, there is nothing wrong with multiple definitions of the same concept as long as secondary definitions do not contradict the original.

 

Well, perhaps you not agree with anything I post above, welcome to philosophy ! You may enjoy the book by Ayn Rand called 'Philosophy: Who Needs It'

[ErlyRisa]

Yeah, I haven't read Ayn Rand, but heard of what she was on about...

 

I would have married the babe.

 

I say your right...

sub, after sub after sub after sub after ....

untill it all looks like "inert naughty word here"

 

...untill we are all just Philosophers.

 

We ain't got much of a choice, in todays day and age, not that much todo anyway.