Unlearn ; Purge ; Forget

Metaphysical, spiritual, philosophical or mystical topics.
The forum for talks about the intangible universe, the human mind, and the soul.

Re: Unlearn ; Purge ; Forget

Postby IsonaliAki » Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:06 pm

The only thing I would like to throw into the mix is the phrase that stood out to me more than anything, and my apologies if it is me misreading anything.

The comment was that philosophy was unbiased. I'm actually a bit surprised to read this. Perhaps the reason is because I tend to think there is nothing that is truly unbiased. Now I do understand that there is logic, reason, etc... those things that appear, for all intents and purposes, to be so clear-cut that they cannot be interpreted based on our own bias. However, I personally feel that there is no such thing. Our greatest discoveries have come from someone taking a look at one of those "absolute" situations.

Let me give an example. One might think that the sun is something that is rather absolute. I mean, after all, it's the sun right? But I can think of at least a dozen different situations that change the "sun" based on personal perspective, or as some might call it, bias....
Person 1: Lives on one side of the planet and sees the sun as rising.
Person 2: Lives on another side of the planet and sees a beautiful sunset.
Person 3: Lives in the desert and sees the sun as a threat to survival.
Person 4: Lives in the bitter cold and sees the sun as a means to survival.

And I could go on. Though I expect someone to say that in all of those cases, the sun itself hasn't changed. And that's true. And the same may be said of philosophy. However, all philosophy, like all those viewing the sun, is expressed through our personal experience... which is why I cannot see it as unbiased.

Ok done rambling now ;)
Dave
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry
And has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams
User avatar
IsonaliAki
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:50 am
Location: Granite City, IL
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Sleepy
Kudos: 3

Re: Unlearn ; Purge ; Forget

Postby ThePermster » Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:17 pm

dermot wrote:To engage on a mission of philosophical reasoning without the underlying belief that human nature is fundamentally loving, would seem to be an exercise in self deception.
If human nature is fundamentally non-loving, then all that will be revealed at the end of philosophical reasoning would be ones own flawed nature, this would surely negate any lofty ideals of a more reasoned society emerging.


I'm trying to follow you here but I think I might need clarification on this part, it's obvious your main assertion lies here but I'm having trouble extrapolating it.

From the gist of it I can grab though I think you might be mixing the desirable goals of man and the nature of man. Yes it is in man's best interests to be loving and I offer no disagreements that we're all born with the capacity to be so but this is different from our physical nature which is that of essentially dominance. And of course the ideological nature of man is wherein lies my assertions thus far.

dermot wrote:I think debate on this issue is too fractured if we dont start from the same agreed point, that being for me that human nature is Loving.


Not necessarily, for the sake of critical analysis of each other's ideas I can take the same assumptions as you and vice versa as a starting point. Not that considering the base idea shouldn't be the first step but we're already at that point so no big deal. =]

dermot wrote:It does seem rather disconcering that we would differ so fundamentally on this, as it seems we both have spent some time in formal Philosophical circles.....one would presume that as 'philosophers' we would agree.
Maybe therein lies the flaw in simple Philosophical Reasoning.....it aint gonna work if we arent singing from the same hymn sheet.


Not at all, philosophy maintains that there is no such thing as truth without supposition. Ultimately the suppositions come from ourselves; either collectively or as individuals. And these are the sources of the ideological diversity we witness in man.
It's thought like this which personifies the dizzying smallness of anthropological and epistemological philosophy. I don't know about anyone else but I know it tends to push me towards seeing the viability in ideas like Lovecraft's cosmicism. x]

IsonaliAki wrote:The comment was that philosophy was unbiased. I'm actually a bit surprised to read this. Perhaps the reason is because I tend to think there is nothing that is truly unbiased. Now I do understand that there is logic, reason, etc... those things that appear, for all intents and purposes, to be so clear-cut that they cannot be interpreted based on our own bias. However, I personally feel that there is no such thing. Our greatest discoveries have come from someone taking a look at one of those "absolute" situations.


I see what you're saying and yes there is an element of bias in a system like logic, the good ol' Cogito shows us that even the most seemingly absolute of truths such as "2+2=4" is fundamentally based on supposition and is thus bias because we only make that supposition so readily because of cognitive phenomena.
Reason on the other hand is based on no suppositions as it is the most fundamental component of what we can ever know. It is the atom to our epistemic bubble. And as empiricism is to science, so too is reason to philosophy. Granted, nothing can be said without first adopting formalised systems upon reason which are then immediately bias to degree but the study cannot ever forget it's inceptive property and will hence always be epistemologically bound by it. Barring human error of course.
User avatar
ThePermster
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Personality: Ambivert
State of Mind or Tendency: Neutral
Kudos: 1

Previous

Return to Spirited Debate

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users

cron
StumbleUpon Digg Delicious Reddit Yahoo Google Live Facebook Twitter MySpace