Wisdom

[pseudo swallow]

Philosophy is defind as the love of wisdom.

Wisdom can be understood as the quality/soundness of our judgments, decisions, actions, thinking, and experience.

Wisdom, then, is not limited to reasoning.

Philosophy has been focused primarily on thinking, questioning and conceptual analysis.

However, if Philosophy is the love of wisdom, Philosophy is also not limited to the conceptual analysis it has traditionally been involved with.

If something is missing from Philosophy, it is the end for which reasoning exists.

What is the purpose of reason if not to provide us a means to the good life.

This means cannot be the same faculty as reason, but the consequence of reason: action.

Applied to ones life, a practical place for wisdom is how we live our lives.

This, practical wisdom (Aristotle initially discussed this in his Nicomachean Ethics) is what has been missing from Philosophy and the answer to most of peoples suffering.

[polar raptor]

Can you give some examples of the practical wisdom that you claim is missing?

[pseudo swallow]

Lets say someone does not feel good, they are upset. Developing the emotional intelligence to know how to identify the causal factor that made one uspset, how one's thoughts are influencing thier perecption of their experience and what to do to make oneself feel happy are all practical things a person can implement in thier lives which is wise. How to create wellbeing is an example of wisdom.

[polar raptor]

Do you think that the practical philosophy of wellbeing is currently missing?

[pseudo swallow]

Yes.

In some ways, what happened was the development of clinical and positive psychology. But, psychology alone is not sufficient. A general philosophical framework is necessary.

[glass torrent]

Why not?

[pseudo swallow]

Why is psychology alone not sufficient?

[glass torrent]

Yes

[pseudo swallow]

this has to do with the nature of what psychology is. Psychology is a science, hence is limited by empiricism. Through psychology, we can only know that which we can test.

Some factors of our wellbeing are not limited to what can be tested, and can be known analytically. This is one area where conceptual analysis philosophy is very useful. Learning to think is not so much scientific, but a practice. We can measure how people think under certain conditions or the limitations to their thought, but the ideal means of thinking is a philosophical skill.

The compination of both the science of psychology and the conceptual training from philosophy gives both the empirical and analytic tools to develop wisdom and wellbeing.

[haughty island]

What you're saying seems interesting, but I would need a short, and precise sentence (or couple of), on which I can focus my attention to get involved in the discussion.

[signal frost]

Not to speak for Achilles but I would summarize this way:

We (modern western society) tend to take for granted that more information is better. But this is not necessarily true and can be detrimental to answering questions of how to best use the information.

The conversation about how to use information is 'wisdom'

@pseudo swallow can feel free to add to, disagree and/or correct me if I'm off or missed something

[haughty island]

Put this way, I would have to agree. This makes sense. It's like trying to google something and u get flooded with 99% useless information. Even in academia I feel that way. Too much information so it's hard to know what you'll really be using and therefore, you equally forget 90% of everything you learn.

[pseudo swallow]

Premise 1: Wisdom is “the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment.” (dictionary.com)

Premise 2: Philosophy is the love of wisdom, Philo (the love of) and sophia (wisdom).

Premise 3: Philosophy has been developed as an intellectual subject, involved in the use of reason as its mode of engagement. Philosophy is contrasted to science, which the mode of engagement is within the world or our experience through some form of measurement or testing.

Premise 4: There is a space of wisdom that is not limited to reason alone. Initially, we think, then take action. It is the ‘taking action’ part that is important and completely within the realm of wisdom.

Premise 5: If philosophy is the love of wisdom then the soundness of actions and decisions is also philosophical.

Premise 6: There is a knowledge, procedural, of how to be, how to exist, that is wise.

Conclusion: Therefore, philosophy and philosophers are bound to practice and teach this practical knowledge of ‘how to be.’

[pseudo swallow]

Discussion:

There is a large segment of society that has taken the value and need we have as humans and prescriptively declared how we ‘ought’ to be. They claim to ‘know’ what is and what is good. 

There is a place for you, as a human, to be and know what is. The practice of being and knowing is necessarily philosophical. It is wise to know how to live well and be happy.

We can explore this in an experimental setting, where we set up an independent variable, control for as much as we can, and determine what strength of a correlation exists. For example, increasing autonomy within an employment setting also increases job satisfaction.

However, we as a society are left to learn how to interpret the results of scientific data, how it applies to our lives, and the application of that information in a useful way for us. This is what it truly means to be a philosopher, the one who has developed the skill of using information relative to our wellbeing. I believe that ‘philosophy’ has a duty to humanity as being representative of wisdom embodied through the agents actions, decisions and fundamentally responsibility.

[pseudo swallow]

Yes, @signal frost the quantity of information or the processing power of our phones, is not actually necessary for us to function or flourish as individuals. There is so much information out there, the ability to determine what is relevant and needed for you, right now, is a product of wisdom.

What is it that allows a person with wisdom to be able to select the correct information?

Part of the answer is values. Here the phrase, ‘It is not the answer that is difficult. It is knowing the right question.’ You have to ‘know where to look’ to be wise in this regard. This means that sometimes, experience will produce better results and is a factor of wisdom. However, we can also have wisdom without experiencing everything, like knowing it is a bad idea to regularly use opioids. You don't need to try them to know it's a bad idea. Philosophers discuss the concepts of empiricism and rationalism to answer the question: does knowledge come from reason or experience?

I believe that this needs to come from within. Your own consciousness needs to make sense of itself. Now, some people with neurological limitations or damage may actually lack the cognitive capacity to perform this mental task. Some people may never have a lot of wisdom. Having low cognitive capacity means they will be easily manipulated, taken advantage of, and harmed. This means that those with wisdom are able to reduce the harm to others who do not understand things. Said another way, "With great power comes great responsibility.” (Uncle Ben)

[pseudo swallow]

The Bodhisattva's vow, from Mahāyāna Buddhism, exemplifies this moral duty by stating they will withhold going to nirvana, heaven, until they eliminate/reduce the suffering of other beings.

We can see similar issues in value economically, where people devote their lives to the accumulation of wealth, a dopamine trigger. If you calculate all the time, stress and joy most of us spend trying to get money, we would actually be happier with lower paying jobs and more time to enjoy truly valuable experiences. For example, I have a dog and she is wonderful. I love her more than anything. Sometimes I am so busy I don't have time for her. I remind myself in those moments that she will not always be with me and I will never get this moment again. The same is true for parents, people with romantic partners, etc. Money is a means to an end, not an end in itself. You work to live, not live to work.

So Pete, what do we do?

Build the philosophical ‘jedi’ academy.

[pseudo swallow]

Do not go to the academy for something that nature will teach you. First, observe the phenomena. This means exploring and understanding the universe, including yourself. Once you observe something interesting, then go to the school to learn about what it was. If no one knows, then you now have an opportunity to 'discover' something.

Remember, everything in the university is something that someone else said. I think its valuable for you to figure out what you want to say.

Once you know what you want to say, then the information is dramatically reduced. You can clearly see a path and science will help you on the way.

There is a balance between your contribution and the help of others'. Together, the self and greater humanity expand what we know.

[haughty island]

Premise 2 is 100% right, thats the pure definition of philosophy

Idk about premise 3

I remember one of my philosophy teachers saying that philosophy is the first science to have ever existed

I’m not saying he’s right, but philosophy is similar to science in many ways

For example, a good philosophical argument pretty much always needs an example, which is, in a way, a sort of “test” if u want. And you often put your argument vs counter argument to also make sure that you are right and try to reach wisdom (the truth)

Conclusion is a bit vague in my opinion, but I wouldn’t necessarily disagree

A lot of old philosophers would definitely agree with your way of thinking I think

“It is wise to know how to live well and be happy” … I would say so (?)
The goal of life is definitely to be happy in my opinion and every action we take is motivated by that : achieving happiness.

I really like your last paragraph: “However, we as a society […]”. Very interesting

I dont know if philosophy is the only way to take good decisions however, but I will agree that it will definitely help you be coherent and thoughtful

“This means that those with wisdom are able to reduce the harm to others who do not understand things”. I definitely agree with that. But we still must be cautious because this way of thinking can become a slippery slope. If you force your ideology on others because you believe (with reason, or not,) that it is for their well being, that can lead to pretty great, and bad things

[haughty island]

Nice speech, but that doesn’t really apply in accounting 😂. Really motivational though 👍

[glass torrent]

Okay, this is interesting. But let me share my understanding of psychology, and should you find it necessary, help me understand what I'm missing.

Psychology is a science, but is not limited to science as you say.

As you probably know, psychology's roots are in philosophy, and while contemporary clinical psychology has an obsession with wanting to be on par with the "hard sciences" (hence the field of neuroscience), there are many fields of thought within psychology to help explain the mind.

Psychodynamic, existential, humanistic/Rogerian, cognitive behavioral, rational-emotive, Adlerian, are all such examples. Each offer an explanation on how the mind works, each offers it's own broad pathways to help someone in distress (which contemporary psychology attempts to define via psychopathology).

All of these fields of thought have empirical evidence to support their respective theories (usually via statistical analysis on treatment outcomes), and all of them can help someone overcome their distress in different ways.

However, if psychology is solely limited through its use of empiricism, then there would be an overarching theory guiding the field; but there isn't. If clinical psychology was limited only to it's evidence-based techniques, then treatment would be copy-paste plan for each individual; but they are not.

[pseudo swallow]

Science and philosophy overlap in terms of reasoning. Both utilize deductive and hypothetical reasoning. Within science, a hypothesis is proposed and falsified. In philosophy, there is no falsification needed, since being empirical and estabilshing a test of a hypothesis is not needed. Philosophically, at least in terms of the academic conceptual analysis type, can be done using reason alone. psychologism, the Freganian criticism of hussel's phenomenology, shows us that logic is normative and the soundness of reasons is not contingent on the reasoner. Therefore, we cannot say that thinking is a form of testing. There is a psychology to reasoning, and being philosophical, but the argument's soundness is independent of the thinker of that argument.

It is important to define what we mean by science. Here, i am using science in its formulation from the enlightment period, where groups of men would get together and perform experiments and falsify hypothesis. This kind of cultural or social context did not exist in anciet philosophy. For us to say that philosophy was the first science, we would have to broaden our definiton of what science means. When they used the term, it was different than thinkers like Newton or Einstein.

[pseudo swallow]

A good argument does not always need an example. A good argument is one that is sound. This means that its premises are true and those premises lead to its conclusion, meaning that it is valid. Sometimes examples are useful from a teaching perspective, so that students can apply abstract information or see how the form of reasoning applies to multiple different contexts. Remember, logic and arguments are based on form. For example, if you take your interpretation of science and use that to 'defeat' my argument, you would actually be following the straw man fallacy, where your criticism is based on one point, however that point is not relevant and hence the argument 'burns up like a straw man'.

Philosophically, it is best to use a 'strong-man' approach or offer the thinker the principle of charity, to interpret their argument in the strongest way. It is good eticate to engage with others this way. We want to make an effor to understand what other people are trying to say, rather than import our own views and argue those views. Yes, we may see the world our own way, however, when engaging with the thoughts of others, stepping outside of our own perspective is necessary to have empathy and truly understand them.

[pseudo swallow]

"‘philosophy’ has a duty to humanity as being representative of wisdom embodied through the agents actions, decisions and fundamentally responsibility."

Having a duty to others is different than coecion. Being philosophical is in how one engages with others and their experience. The argument says nothing about 'forcing.' It is about a moral duty to represent what wisdom is via demonstrating and being a role model. Again, there is nothing said in my argument about 'forcing' people to do anything. I am talking about leading by example, so that others can decide to do the same if they wish.

Forcing ideology is a problem in the world and being philosophical is a way to resolve that problem.

I am actually offering a solution to a problem you are rasing.

[pseudo swallow]

Thank you.

Well, the post i started was titled 'wisdom.' From there i discussed the concept and applications of practical philosophy or wisdom.

Being a philosopher, whose job is accounting, will help the person do their job more effectively. If an accountant is foolish in their lives, suffering from alcoholism and making unnecessary errors, this would be an example of how a lack of wisdom impacts their ability to do thier job.

The point is that no matter what you do, if you devlop wisdom, akin to how people think that spirituality or faith will do anything beyond making them feel better about life, then you will be more successful in that role. In the context of the person who does accounting, it does apply.

If you discuss how the philosophical method, or the point about discovery and finding new information to publish, applies to the subject of accounting, we can see how learning old methods and refining them, in any field, will advance that field.

to advance a field like accounting, one would need experience in a variety of different situations that current accounting practices may break down and not work so well. This could be management techniques, utilizing technology, abandoning old practices, etc.

It is not that wisdom does not apply to accounting, it is that you would need to navigate the subejct and practice itself to determine what advancements would be. The person who can understand the current context and make efforts towards progressing it by solving current issues, would be the wise person of that domain. it applies to all fields of knowledge, not just accounting.

[pseudo swallow]

you should watch some of my lectures on youtube

[pseudo swallow]

Okay, very good.

Lets take a step back.

There is the role of empirical investigation, the best means to do so, is the scientific method because it is supposed to give us unbiased results and can be replicated. These results are a reflection of the universal laws of nature. If you want to know how many apples are in the basket, there is a way to test to find out. that kind of approach is within the realm of science.

What is the need for philosophy then?

It would be what we do with that data and how to apply it within our experience. (what you do with the apples)

Philosophy and psychology together are required to be a master of wellbeing. Knowing what is important, what the facts of that areas is, and how to apply those facts in a meaningful way.

To some extent, we need to expand and demonstrate different areas of being philosophical: for example, taking experiences that we do not have words for, and translating them into a coherent conceptual framework. Sometimes in our understanding of our experience, it becomes a testable or factual claim. This is where science takes over. We do our best to understand what is, so that our words actually match reality.

[glass torrent]

Make sense to me. Well explained. Thank you

[pseudo swallow]

@glass torrent What courses in psychology have you taken?

[glass torrent]

Oh geez, quite a bit. Not sure how interesting it would be to list them, but enough to complete undergrad and grad in a clinical master's program, a long with complimentary sociology courses. Why do you ask? xD

[pseudo swallow]

I can tell.

I am on the equivalent of my 2nd undergrad psychology degree. I also have 2 philosophy degrees and a general bachelors. Its over 130 undergrad courses. I started teaching many years ago about the philosophy of mental health. I applied for grad school next year

[glass torrent]

Oh wow, good for you!! I assumed philosophy was a focus for you, and teaching makes sense based on the YouTube channel and your clear style of communication~

What do you think of undergrad psych so far? And what's your planned focus for grad school?

[pseudo swallow]

I have been taking undergrad psych courses for a while. They are good, despite any poor professor. I feel that phil and psych both are essential for all of us to know how to live a good life.

Some courses i am more interested in than others, like social psych, clinical, personality, etc.

I like to apply the philosophy of science, via kuhns criteria of adequacy, and how terms are conceptualized in the operationalization method of creating definitions. The correspondence and coherence theory of truth are relevant here, for how do we know some cocept, like diagnosis in the DSM or personality, actually pick out a phenomenon in our experience?

The relation between a word and phenomena has a problem of subjectivity in the sense that we may disagree what is a case of the term and what is not. I.e., what falls into/outside of a category and whether the person accurately observes the phenomena.

Feedback and criticism with a narcissist is a good example. You say, "i feel used and not taken into consideration" they respond, "you are gaslighting me"

Which interpretation is true?

[glass torrent]

I think I understand your point in the third paragraph to basically reiterate your point that philosophy defines experience for psychology. Correct? If not, it may be my lack of familiarity with your aforementioned concepts, so please feel free to clarify~

[glass torrent]

Regarding subjectivity and the narcissist example: I'm not sure if you are suggesting that philosophy allows for subjectivity of experience while psychology does not, but if you are, then I disagree. Psychology takes into account the subjectivity of experience, diagnoses having a list of symptoms that can fall under (but are not all required) that diagnostic criteria is an example; as are the use of the word "spectrum" to define various disorders, such as the autism spectrum disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

Additionally, psychology, or at least cognitive behavioral theory, takes special care to differentiate between thoughts, feelings and objective reality. For the narcissist example from a cognitive behavioral perspective, both statements are true, while both are false because they both describe one's thoughts from their subjective experience via expressed thoughts. So to each individual, their own statement is true while the other's is false.. although one can argue that the narcissist is manipulating the other and/or intentionally "lying" to protect their own self-image, but let's just assume they are both truthfully sharing their own experience xD.

Psychology is empirically based, but it does not presume that there is an objective truth to experience.

[pseudo swallow]

Operationalization is a method of creating a definition in such a way that the phenomena being defined can be measured. So yes, if by philosophy you mean 'how we define concepts,' then within psychology, philosophy is used to create definitions. Whenever we define 'experience,' or any definition for that matter, we are engage in a philosophical practice. I am going beyond simply defining experience in general, but discussing how psychology uses definitions as a guide post for measurment. We can find problems if the concepts are incoherent or unrepresentative of 'reality.' Hence my reference to the coherence vs correspondence theory of truth.

[pseudo swallow]

Meta note: very good discussion tactics. You are exemplifying a particular interpretaion and making an effort to understand my argument rather than attack a straw man/red herring interpretation.

[pseudo swallow]

Its important to break down what the meaning of 'subjectivity' is. Often, this term and experience can be used to justify problematic positions like ethical relativism or post-modern views that truth does not exist.

we also need to break down the meaning of truth and 'objectivity.' I am using truth in a Wittgensteinian way, 'truth is a function of statements,' meaning that a statement can be either true or false. To evaluate the truth of a statement, we can utilize correspondance which is a relation to reality. Tarski's, 'snow is white if and only if snow is white,' is an example of how the truthness of our statments related to our concepts becomes fallacious due to begging the question or circular reasoning. How do we know if x is y, snow is white, if we have to assume snow is white? Coherence thoery basically means that something is true if it coheres with the way people use that term. Snow is white if that is how we refer to this object 'snow.' The problem here, as with religious faith, pseudoscience and scientific limitations, is we can all be wrong. Ad populum, a logical fallacy, demonstrates that the truth of something is not based on the majority of people's opinion. Its truth must be based on some other information. Otherwise, if a group of people believe in somehting, nothing could prove them wrong. Often we can see a majority is incorrect, simply because of a lack of information or biases like conformity or group think.

[pseudo swallow]

Objectivity simply means that the observation or claim is not relative to the specific person but can be universalized to anyone who perceives the object or arrives at the conclusion. This is why logic is so powerful, anyone can follow the steps and arrive at the same conclusion. it is not relative to any specific person, but to the structure of the statements themselves. if you can understand the statements, you can follow the reasoning.

Similar with observations, anyone with functional sense perception would arrive at the same observation, it is not limited to the specific person.

So what is subjectivity? It is the realm of qualia experiences that cannot be transferred to others. For example, the way a person sees a colour will be slightly different than others because of the ratio of rods and cones in thier eyes. This allows for a 'subjective' experience where one person's perception of blue is different than others. Subjectivity is a mode of experience. To say something is subjective, like an opinion, is akin to saying 'it is a matter of taste.'

[pseudo swallow]

The problem here, is that some people (i.e., narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths and Machiavellian types) use this zone of subjectivity as a manipulation tactic. Because knowledge can be seen as ambiguous here, they use that ambiguity to confuse others of their intentions and actions. (you could even argue they are confusing themselves as well. depends on the self-awareness of the person)

Just because a claim is made does not make it true. People can objectively observe phenomena, like a narcisist exploiting someone, and it be true. The problem is how to determine its truth. The objectivist uses the correspondance theory, i observe you doing X therefore it is true. The narcissist uses coherence, your observation goes against my narrative or makes me look bad, therefore it is not true.

Instead of modifying their behaviour, actions or thoughts, the narcissist attempts to change reality by making it seem it does not exist and the person is suffering from psychosis or lying.

[pseudo swallow]

I bring up the example of the narcissit because it is one of the main cases where CBT does not work. Their disorder is directly related to not being objective about their thoughts and perpetuating their 'way of being' in thinking, acting and relation to others.

Both statements cannot be true and false at the same time. If the statement is related to reality, then there is only one truth. They may both be phrased incorrectly, but the phenomena in question is consistent, independent of any specific observer (or denier).

I am not sure how much experience you have with narcissim or people pathologically lying. We can objectively rule out truth here because their statements are contradictory to objectively observable information. This is how courts all over the world determine conviction of criminality. The person accused usually does not admit, therefore seeking evidence beyond their statement is necessary to determine what is true. This is a means of being objective: anyone who looks at the evidence and understands it will arrive at the same conclusion.

[pseudo swallow]

https://www.achillesjustice.com/post/objective-reality

Here is a paper I wrote on Objective Reality based on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

[glass torrent]

Lol there's something particularly funny about calling that a "meta note" xD

[glass torrent]

Your statement here is consistent with my knowledge as well. Feelings are valid, thoughts are not necessarily valid.

For your example, I'm going to make a series of assumptions for ease of conversation, but I recognize individual differences within narcissism are the rule, rather than the exception.

To dive into things more, your example is a bit tricky, in the sense that "I feel used" is debatable on whether or not that is actually a feeling, rather than a thought (i.e. "you are using me" vs "I feel hurt/distant/angry at narcissist, etc.). For the narcissist, saying "you are gaslighting me", is subjective to their experience. However, it is implying the statement "I feel insecure by your statement, therefore you must be manipulating my sense of reality" (emotional reasoning). The underlying feelings for both individuals are objectively true. The thoughts are a matter of perspective, oftentimes to explain a natural feeling, or maintain a manufactured one.

[glass torrent]

Admittedly NPD is beyond my scope, but where did you ascertain that CBT was not a treatment for NPD? I believe the go-to treatment is probably within the realm of psychodynamic approaches, but I do believe CBT can, and has been, applied.

Imo, the statements are relative to each person's subjective experience (as explained above), rather than to objective reality. Perhaps it was the way you worded the example, but even the term gaslighting itself is defined by one's perception of reality. The narcissist has a skewed perspective of reality, usually as a defense mechanism if I understand correctly, but it is still their experience.

[glass torrent]

Yeah, so I mean that iterates my being a small fish swimming in a large pond lol. I simply don't have the background and breadth of knowledge in philosophy to respond effectively, hence I have to assume your definitions and framework for the discussion is valid, whereas I'm sure that there are differing opinions for those more well verse in your field. The only thing I can offer here is the practical perspective of a therapist with a knowledge base in psychological theory.

[pseudo swallow]

Good point. It is important to distinguish feelings from thoughts.

This inter-subjectivity problem is at the heart of an issue within the philosophy of psychology and social science in general. In ethnography, we can criticize the observers because they are importing their own biases within the observation. The language itself being used to describe or identify phenomena can be problematic, the observer accurately matching the term with the observation, etc.

What comes to mind for you in this regard?

The law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle both make me weary of accepting that two versions of reality can be true. I believe that if a contradiction or contrary relation exists, it is an antithetical relationship which requires us to develop a larger theory categorically that includes both perspectives.

"Two thirds of NPD patients tend to leave treatment prematurely ...and elevated ratings of pathological narcissism are associated with treatment drop out...herapists of these patients report feeling disengaged, hostile/angry, criticized/devalued helpless/inadequate, unsatisfied/negative, or worried/overinvolved ...These reactions are hard to bear, and many times they lead to stalemates, treatment undermining interventions, or precipitate treatment terminations... Dismissive attachment, associated with NPD....is also associated with weaker alliance, less treatment commitment, less self-disclosure, less time spent in sessions discussing treatment relevant themes, and longer pauses (https://journals.lww.com/jonmd/fulltext/2024/07000/can_patients_with_narcissistic_personality.6.aspx)

The nature of NPD itself makes it difficult for CBT because the person is resistant to self-awarenes, feedback and criticism. There is some evidence for improvement, but these patients are extremely difficult because therapy by its nature is social and their disorder necessarily has negative social properties.

[pseudo swallow]

Its cool man. Discussion is a practice and the most important thing is your motivation on the topic. With motivation, you can communicate and learn more about it so that an understanding can be reached.

[glass torrent]

Something about your wording here has inspired me to read your essay, so well done :P. I think my feeling intimidated played some role when I started reading your essay (hence small fish metaphor), but I'll see if I can set some time aside this weekend and dive in, as I suspect I'll understand your perspective more from that essay. I'll post any questions I have first, then respond to the current discussion at hand, if that works for you~

[pseudo swallow]

It is important to be mindful of the self-fulfilling prophecy. believing you cannot do it is false, and that false belief prevents you from trying, making it come true.

its best to switch it around, believe you can and keep learning until you do. Kant is challenging, if not the most challenging philosopher. But take the challenge on. I tried to simplify it, even though it is still complicated. As long as you take your time, breaks when it is overwhelming, you will make it to the end. This will increase your skill at reading comprehension and the belief that you can do it next time, self-efficacy.

[glass torrent]

I protest that the estimated read time is not intended for the amateur audience 😵‍💫.. I'm a quarter of the way through though...

[glass torrent]

"Judgment is, the second order, mediating cognition of the representation of the representation of an object"

First of all, fuck this sentence (with love).. took me a bit to wrap my head around that. 😛

Second of all, your simplification is very appreciated.. and really speaks volumes to the complexity that Kant must be.

Third of all, I now understand and really appreciate your general guideline about coming to an agreement on terms and definitions before engaging in discussion. It is logical, but pushed to the extreme (like Kant seems to) it becomes an absolute necessity.

I'm still wrapping my head on this, and I suspect I may need to read it again.. and again.. to grasp the concept fully.. but let me give it a shot... It seems to me that Kant is claiming objective reality exists externally, but there is also a sort of.. maybe innate.. intuition that allows us to live in and know that objectivity.. which precedes perception, which is inherently biased. That objectivity is time and space.

[pseudo swallow]

Okay, i didnt know what you were doing. Your reading that!

The paper on objective reality.

Yah, it is a good workout eh?

[glass torrent]

Yessir~ I'm a sucker for an inspirational comment.. so you said your piece, and to Kant I went

[pseudo swallow]

The representation of the representation can be confusing for sure

He is arguing thet objective reality exists a priori, before experience, because we would not be able to experience anything without it

[spice garden]

Yeah, no, I haven't read the paper but I don't see the difficulty.

[glass torrent]

Well aren't you special then 😛

[glass torrent]

Agreed regarding the inter-subjectivity problem. Beyond research, it reminds me of the issue of countertransference in a therapy session: when a therapist's biases get to such a degree that negatively impacts their own ability to grasp the perspective of the client. That being the ultimate goal imo: to understand another's experience, and act as that "fellow traveler" to help them not to achieve our own versions of peace, but their own.

Perhaps what is in the realm of (objective) reality is more limited than we assume?

[glass torrent]

Ok I see the confusion. This critique of NPD is not unique to NPD, but consistent among all personality disorders (PDs). PDs are a complex web of core beliefs and genetic predispositions that make any tx difficult. Imagine being told the essence of who you think you are is "maladaptive", "needs to change", or is a clinical disorder. A tough pill to swallow for anyone, nevermind the unique barriers each PD presents with.

So yeah, CBT works.. just not well.. but so doesn't most other treatments on PDs

[vestal shoal]

Philosophy is learning everything there is to know about Isreal and Palestine, and then going to the other chat to make a well informed post discussing it.
Wisdom is knowing to avoid that mess al together because you know there is nothing you can do and no one else will ever care about your opinion.
(I know its slightly misses the point of the post but I thought it was funny, and semi relevant.)

[spice garden]

Wdym?

[glass torrent]

I was teasing you because you saw something as easy when I said it was difficult

[spice garden]

The only part I don't think I follow on (because I don't know what he is referring to there in orders of mediating cognitions) is "second order". The rest seems clear. Objects have some standard representation then our judgements are a representation overlaying those standard representations of objects. Really didn't seem to be a difficult sentence, granted like I said I can't know that I am right without becoming more directly acquainted with the source material 😅

Oh I misread your sentence. i thought you wrote "well you aren't special then" 🤦‍♂️

Don't get me wrong though there are definitely sentences that are really difficult to parse ans conceptually hard. Usually this is either because they are highly technical, contain a lot of parts, or are addressing things in a such a general way that it leaves out intermediate or filling details. Often all of those simultaneously.

Other times it's because the language and standards are truly unclear and it also may not be written especially well.

An example I could give is translations of the number theory sections of Euclid's Elements and trying to constantly parse the differences between divides, divided, measures, and measured (I'm probably forgetting some extra bit of confusion he threw into that. At that point I'd rather go back to the geometry and try to wrap my head around obtuse diagrams.)

Glad modern number theory moved beyond the stupidity of that terminology (the way Euclid used it).

[pseudo swallow]

Wisdom is the soundness of our judgments, decisions, actions, state of mind, thinking and reasoning, etc.

Wisdom is not knowing about Israel and Palestine for the category of wisdom goes beyond this socio-political-religious conflict.

We can apply our wisdom to the conflict.

"Wisdom is knowing to avoid that mess al together because you know there is nothing you can do and no one else will ever care about your opinion." - Choosing your battles can be wise. Being informed about facts is also wise. We can apply both of these principles in our understanding of all political conflicts in the world.

I agree that opinions matter most to the person who has them.

An argument, however, is valuable to any who see's its merit because they can use that argument themselves.

Opinions are akin to 'matters of taste:' they are relative to the person who has them and not transferable to others.

An argument, if based on true premises and structured in a valid way, is transferable to any reasonable person.

If you learn to philosophize and make sense of problems in the world, people who understand you will appreciate the wisdom you offer them.

It doesn't matter if 'they' don't care about your opinion because they will live by your reasoning.

Learn to make sense, be wise and philosophical in a way that unifies conflict and provides solutions. Those ideas will pass on and make the world a better place.

[vestal shoal]

This is alot to think about

[signal frost]

https://youtu.be/KyfUysrNaco?si=nNrIzk8lV9_WTzPs&t=6710

[pseudo swallow]

I appreciate Naval's self-discovery notion on how 'philosophy' becomes relevant to people.

Is it true that 'wisdom cannot be transmitted'?

• there is the personal development and growth that is individual, however I believe that we can at least direct someone to where they can find wisdom or explain it in some way.
• There can be a category mistake here in that going through an experience is not the same as explaining or understanding an experience. If we confuse these two, there would be a fallacy in our reasoning.

We do not have to 'reinvent the wheel' when it comes to philosophy. There are some standards that apply to everyone like we all live in the same universe and we are all humans.

• These properties give us a common foundation for our existence and from that foundation universal truths can be established.

I agree that we need to learn wisdom ourselves but others can also teach us that wisdom. There is a two part - learner/teacher - dichotomy that is at the root of written philosophical work. We can transcribe meaning through language and others, centuries after, can reflect on those words and derive wisdom from it.

If what Naval is saying is true, then philosophy would be entirely different and maybe even non-existent. If wisdom cannot be taught then why write down or read any philosophy? The mere existence of the socio-cultural context of philosophy in some ways falsifies his thesis.

He is trying to talk about the psychological development of wisdom and how text in any book cannot replace the personal growth that people go through. But this is not what reading or practicing philosophy is meant to be. Philosophy in written form is there for the reader to learn from so that they do not have to 'learn the hard way' in their development of wisdom.

If someone has gone through a thought process and has had specific experiences that they can write down for others to learn from, others can derive wisdom or at least principles of wisdom from it.

Another way to say what Naval is saying is, "reading about someone going through puberty is not the same as going through puberty yourself." Yes that is true, but reading about it can create familiarity for your experience and guide you through the process.

I beleive this is why it is important to test things out for yourself. To see if the principles derived from reading philosophy are true analytically and in the world.

[signal frost]

Yes exactly.

It can be transmitted but the means of transmission isn't simply via text. The work has to be done after the learning in order for wisdom to emerge

something like that...

[pseudo swallow]

@signal frost what does wisdom mean to you?

[signal frost]

Knowledge is the what
Meaning is the why
Wisdom is the how

[pseudo swallow]

Very good

[pseudo swallow]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom

Similar in mode as the love of music, the 'love of,' 'philo,' is the approach to the specific content.

What about the one who possess wisdom? What would they be called? (The title 'sage' from confucian/taoist thinking comes to mind)

If there is a wise person, the philosopher adores them.

Who is this wise person?

The lover of wisdom and the wise are different, as the listener to music and the musician.

What do we call them if philosopher isnt actually the meaning?

What indications can we observe in someone which demonstrates wisdom?

(I am approaching philosophy scientifically/empirically in some ways with this last line of thinking)

If wisdom exists, there is evidence if it. We can then distinguish wisdom from non-wisdom either in ourselves and others.

Does the love of wisdom mean admiration for the wisdom of others?

Or is the love of wisdom about being wise?

What does it mean to love something?

Embody it within yourself, like cosplay wolverine, or read the wolverine comic and admire.

Philosophy may be misguided in its orientation to wisdom, which has plummeted conceptual analysis, disguised as wisdom, into an endless spiral of intellectualized rationalization.

Wisdom is necessarily a larger category than inquiry and logic, therefore philosophy too goes beyond the behaviour of questioning undogmatically and making sense of ideas.

What is?

[vestal shoal]

My favorite philosopher, Stone Cold Steve Austin.

https://tenor.com/view/stone-cold-steve-austin-stone-cold-what-gif-5546524793881907206

[signal frost]

"Philosophy may be misguided in its orientation to wisdom, which has plummeted conceptual analysis, disguised as wisdom, into an endless spiral of intellectualized rationalization. "

The thing that we call philosophy in academia no longer does much philosophizing.

I've been listening to "The Master and His Emissary" by Ian McGilchrist which suggests that the left hemisphere tends to a level of analysis that predominates in our world. I think that in order to continue to do philosophy and seek wisdom holistic integrity is required and at least as much effort in the discussion needs to be directed towards the things that the right hemisphere tends to do well.

Specific vs holistic thinking to massively oversimply.

[pseudo swallow]

Interesting

[signal frost]

https://youtu.be/M1oJeMi8_jY?si=sqYPyiL7Tg-BeGAN

Here is a decent summary

[pseudo swallow]

Interesting, i read 75% of the transcript. I would have to read the studies or a summary of them to have a better sense of the claims being made here. I saved the book to my basket, maybe I will add it to the library soon.

I would be cautious of anthropomorphizing the hemispheres as having intentions

[signal frost]

Yeah he doesn't do that

It's the only way to even attempt to get across the differences without way more words

[pseudo swallow]

what have you gained from the distinction between the left and right brain that McGilchrist has demonstrated?

[pseudo swallow]

The information about the dual hemisphere's that I find interesting is in the examples of split brain patients, where the corpus callosum (the connecting tissue between the right and left hemisphere) is cut. We observe that each hemisphere processes independent cognitions (perceptions, conceputalization and impulses), language and object recognition.

The cross laterlaization observation is also intereresting, where information is processed on the opposite side of the bran and travels over.

Thomas Mitzeinger, who conducted the rubber hand experiements, talks about the self-model phenemonological perspective, our first person perspective. He discusses how cognitively, we have models that overlap and create our experience and sense of self. He wrote a book called 'being no one.' it is very comprehensive and explanatory.

I bring this up because even though, for example in split brain patients they can process different information independently, they still perceive themselves as a coherent whole and a unified person. they are not two people. The first person experience, even though we have two hemispheres, is still unified. It is interesting what the properties of that first person experience are, hence metzinger.

https://youtu.be/mthDxnFXs9k?si=kisgKxjMyn8jBEhr

https://www.amazon.ca/Being-No-One-Self-Model-Subjectivity/dp/0262633086

[signal frost]

The asymmetric importance of context

We can spend infinite energy looking inwards or outwards at something but if a commensurate effort isn't spent putting that thing into context it's often missing the point

it's kind of like my main criticism to how most philosophy is taught

He's either reinforcing, articulating or explaining something I've felt

[pseudo swallow]

Have you read post modernism or post structualism?

[signal frost]

a bit

[pseudo swallow]

Derrida and focault

[signal frost]

a bit, not a lot

[pseudo swallow]

There is probably some lecture series by a prof on each that is comprehensive and accurately goes through their contributions. I feel you would benefit greatly from exploring those thinkers.

https://youtu.be/Jo-VpsyVOKo?si=-ZbQwtM5AiGR-uxE

i watched this guy to understand Kant when i was writing the paper on objective reality

he has a phd from the netherlands

[pseudo swallow]

Critical Thinking Exercise:

Someone you care about believes this image is real and true.

They argue:

1. you have never seen the earth from space, you dont know.

2. This image is just as real as all the other images shot from space.

3. Nasa is run by the government. We know that government is corrupt therefore nasa is as well.

What response would a philosopher make to these statements and image?

[pseudo swallow]

Critical thinking exercise.

Apply critical thinking to the claims made.

1. what assumptions, if any, exist in the statements?

2. what are the implications and are they supported by the claims?

3. what kind of evidence is used to justify the claims?

4. is the evidence sound?

5. Are there any biases from the person making the statements?

6. informal logical fallacy check, ex: within this context, are the statements coherent or is there an issue of relevance

[spice garden]

Before I get to the real response:
a) I would ignore them and move on with my life because anyone saying this is either fucking with me or a raving lunatic.
b) If it is persistent and this option is feasible I will actively try to remove them from life and wherever possible work to avoid any problems resulting from their lunacy.
c) Yes, I know this is unsatisfying and not the answer you are looking for. Yes, my caring about or for them makes little difference. This is just who I am.

[spice garden]

Okay. And now the real response, to the best of ability in my current state, hopefully.

1. Assumptions (in order): Image is real (1), image is true (2), you have never seen the Earth from space (3), (extrapolating on imprecise partial statement) you don't know about the view of Earth from space (4), (extrapolating and rephrasing) the realness of this image is contingent on the realness of other purported images taken from space (5), a hierarchy of realness exists and every image purportedly shot from space exists on the same level of that hierarchy (6), (apparent universal qualification) all images shot from space form a comprehensive category where every member has the same properties of realness (7), "NASA is run by the government" (8), government is corrupt (9), we have knowledge of government corruption (10), NASA is corrupt (11), and from the image: the Earth is actually a bump (12) on some larger celestial body (13 and 14) surrounded by a giant circular ice wall (15). Oh and NASA wants to hide this ridiculous notion from the public (16).

[spice garden]

2a) Implications (in order): You have never seen the Earth from space (assump. 3), therefore you lack knowledge about the Earth from space (assump. 4)(Imp. 1). Unsupported: I lack the direct sensory experience that comes from my body being in space with the Earth in view, but I do not lack all knowledge of its nature.

NASA is run by the government (assump. 8) and government is a corrupt entity (assump. 9), therefore NASA is corrupt (assump. 11)(Imp. 2). Unsupported: Corruption is not a universal and intransient property. As a result we cannot conclude that the existence of the larger category of government corruption also proves the existence of past, current or ongoing corruption by or concerning NASA specifically.

We also have knowledge pertaining to the corruption of government (assump. 10), therefore we know that NASA a government agency is corrupt too (Imp. 3). Unsupported: For the same reasons that implication #2 is unsupported plus the fact that knowledge cannot be extended in this manner. A general knowledge of government corruption happening does not raise to the standard of being knowledge about corruption occurring in NASA in particular. Additionally, even if factual corruption in NASA is stipulated and corroborated by witness testimony and observation of known events and circumstances, this does not necessarily provide information about the corruption claims indirectly suggested by this person arguing.

Um, man this is too much right now. I'm going to have to pace myself but we get the idea. This is, of course, deliberately and blatantly problematic on so many levels (but so are many perfectly sane and reasonable arguments made by tons of people all the time).

[spice garden]

By now you know that I am like this. But this sort of analysis that I naturally gravitate towards can have its own issues at times. At the end of the day humans aren't really like some massive information processing computer. We can't consider everything and it isn't in our nature nor resource efficient to blabber on about every detail of every situation; relevant or not. That is obviously before even accounting for the unknown or uncertain. The communication barrier this mode of thinking presents is clearly substantial.

[spice garden]

This applies and refers to self-communication as much as it does communication with other people or with systems.

On that note, is @glass torrent still around? His last message in this server was 3 weeks ago.

[pseudo swallow]

@spice garden I am very impressed with your response. 8.5/10

I feel that people in the philosophy society group chat would enjoy and learn from your response. May I share what you wrote with them?

[spice garden]

Go ahead. I wasn't finished. I happened to write that at like midnight 😅 But I would say I got through most of the core points plus some assumptions people generally might not think to isolate (leaving most common knowledge assumptions as those would be annoying to write out to little effect). Of course I didn't get to the fabricated nature of the image, it's obvious geometric and physical impossibility, lack of correct perspective, and the fact that they just overlayed a 2d projection map of the Earth so that it wouldn't look like that if it were a real image taken of a large 3d object. There are things there that people more specifically knowledgeable about climate systems could maybe point out in detail, like the ocean and atmospheric currents and the effect an ice wall would have on them (not to mention temperatures and weather effects). The elephant in the room of course is that if a giant ice wall existed anyone would be able to observe it easily. An ice wall of that size in a real world environment for any significant length of time also probably wouldn't be that uniform relatively speaking as constant melting and/or breaking off would occur and it isn't clear how such an object would be replenished. Not to mention it looks like the ice wall is clipping into Australia there so does New Zealand and half of Australia now not exist too? If an ice wall that large and tall (doubt it could even hold together; like it's not physically possible) existed that close people in Australia could see it with their naked eyes. But we wouldn't expect flat earthers to understand geometry and physics now would we 😆? I slightly misstated my 16th assumption there which I wrote quickly since I edited in assumptions in the image right before I got off and said I would continue later, but I chose not to rewrite it at the time I reread the caption when I was first working on the comments early this morning.

Anyway, I said their statement was that NASA 'wants to hide this ridiculous notion from the public', but in fact it is even worse at it gaslights NASA by suggesting they "don't want to see" the truth, being some "picture" they got off the internet. Though I will acknowledge this is getting less philosophical 😄

[spice garden]

As for biases, the biggest obvious one is conspiracy thinking, which is a psychological trait that we all have to some extent. But it becomes delusional, paranoid, and driven by ignorance and misinformation in certain groups like anti-vaxxers and flat earthers.

[pseudo swallow]

Very well done @spice garden

I will copy and paste what you wrote with reference to you and show you what they said.

You had a very thorough and comprehensive analysis of this type of thinking and the flaws in reasoning.

The hard part would be getting this person to actually listen/read your analysis

Psychologically, i have spent some time learning why people think this way, as you alluded to conspiracy thinking, and how or if they can be taught to be reasonable.

Often, if delusional thinking or even psychosis is present, i feel that it cannot be done. Their brains are not wired to think logically.

I then wonder if some social or cultural influence can help, like a sense of belonging being more Psychologically meaningful than the delusion and hence with the right group, they could abandon delusional thoughts, at least conforming to sound reasons of others.

[pseudo swallow]

Let's see what they say.

[spice garden]

Yeah, I did pack some insults in there too I admit. But I was focusing on it as the assignment you asked for as I read it. That is, as a critical thinking exercise rather than a direct confrontation with arguing subject/individual.

[pseudo swallow]

Yes, you did very well. If it were an actual assignment, organizing how you write would be an improvement so that ideas are separated and formatted clearly.

Your arguments are pretty good. You could improve on identifying specific fallacy types defining that type and showing how the specific statement is an example of that type.

I switched from the logical analysis to persuasion or cogency. How can we get people to understand the reasoning? This becomes a question once we know what our sound reasons are.

[spice garden]

Yeah this was more like a draft version on a social media site (again at midnight) and then the second comment today was written quickly without the same level of consideration to stickong to the form of organization yoh asked for. If I were doing it as a word doc or anything like that I would probably break it up into like 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, sort of formatting system.

[spice garden]

So @pseudo swallow I haven't really been getting around to any of this but did anyone in your group say anything you found interesting? I didn't watch the video either, I guess I'll have to look for that.

[pseudo swallow]

"In order not to violate the first law of logic, the law of identity, we must clearly distinguish two concepts:

• reality (assuming it exists), and
• a description of reality (can be called knowledge, model, or pattern, I will use them interchangeably)

The implications:

• A model of a thing is always an approximation, by definition, which means it can never be perfectly true, just true enough.
• A model can only exist inside a processor, in the human case, the brain.
• A processor does not directly interact with reality, it only receives electrical signals, looks for patterns in those signals and adjusts the model.

The purpose of a model

A model is used to predict how reality will react to one's actions. Inside a processor it looks like, If I produce a particular electrical output, I expect to receive a certain electrical input (feedback). For example, if I realese the cup I am holding I expect to see and hear it fall and break. If the feedback matches the prediction, the probability of the model being true increases, the model is true enough and can be used for future predictions.

The only way to determine if a description corresponds to reality with an acceptable degree of error is to make a prediction and test it. With more test confirming the prediction, the probability of the description being true enough increases. This is called the scientific method.(To make a description perfectly true, one would need to run all conceivable test, and learn everything there is to know, i.e. become omniscient, which is a property of God, and is not achievable by any processor embedded in reality).

What one sees can only be perceived by the processor as a model, which is never perfectly true, and requires testing to establish if it's true enough.
An image or a story are descriptions of reality.

There is a shortcut for determining if a model is true enough - instead of rigorous testing, one can compare a model with the same models in other processors, i.e. consensus. For humans, this approach has a benefit of predicting other people's behavior. And that's what this exercise is about.

I have never tested whether the Earth is flat, I know that it's not through consensus. For most people the question of the shape of the Earth is impractical and untestable, and it becomes the question of trust in someone else's description. That's why it persists and likely will continue to persist.

(this is all from Denis in the group)

we must, without a doubt, distinguish between reality (direct sensory presence) and description (mediated conceptual perception, the model we form in our minds about reality itself).. this distinction is a foundational point in any process of argumentation and discussion..
by "distinction," i don't mean what most people understand.. rather, i refer to differentiating between the former and the latter..
although there appears to be a contradiction between these two aspects (sensory and intellectual), this contradiction is not a permanent problem.. it can be overcome by elevating it to a higher level, where we see that sensory presence (direct experience) and the conceptual model (description) are two sides of the same coin 🪙.. this is what Hegel taught us through his explanation of the concept of "Aufhebung"..
in other words, the process of knowledge is not merely an attempt to match our preconceived ideas with an entirely inaccessible "external" reality.. rather, it is a gradual growth of our self-awareness, where we move from a contradictory experience to a more coherent and unified understanding, making the contradiction itself part of a higher epistemological system..
however, i see a weak point in this approach.. relying on consensus and agreement among scholars, for example, is a form of intellectual laziness.. conducting precise tests leads us to a more complete and better understanding.. consensus is merely a means to predict certain behaviors or define the framework of a subject.. it is a quick solution but a flimsy and poor one..
in addition to all that, there are glaring weaknesses in this approach..

1. oversimplification of mental processes: the text reduces the mind to a processor that receives electrical signals and updates models based on patterns, thereby diminishing the complexity and richness of human thought (emotions, effects, past experiences...), including the interactive and interpretive role played by experiences and culture..
2. neglect of social and cultural context: the text focuses on the idea that mental models are formed within "processors" (minds) individually, ignoring the impact of social experiences and cultural communication in knowledge formation. knowledge is also built through dialogue and collective participation.. this is something that Carl Jung would react to strongly, possibly banging the table and perhaps even overturning it after all he has contributed to us 😂..
3. the problematic concept of "good enough": What does it mean for something to be "correct enough"???.. 😫.. (this is from member 462)

[spice garden]

These nerds 😍