The truth believed is a lie
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on November 29th, 2011, 8:03 pm
Last edited by godsvoice on December 6th, 2011, 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions."
My personal view differs only slightly. I don't have the requirement of an object. Phenomenology is conscious experience. They've given it a direction, that is a structure. Intentionality.
Anything to do with you as a person, and your first-person point of view, how you perceive and experience things is phenomenology. In certain circles, that is a very central part of philosophy, and while you might not want to identify with that, it still includes this.
Philosophy is way to broad. Directly translated, it is love of wisdom. However, in more realistic use, it could almost be deemed love of anything. For instance, wisdom and love can be found in many things. You might think philosophy is only an intellectual pursuit. Not at all. Whether smart or not, you have a philosophy. Even if the philosophy is completely counterintuitive to something intellectual. Love of music, would lead to a certain kind of philosophy.
Music might be ideal to demonstrate the point. Experiencing music, perhaps in itself, is not necessarily an intellectual pursuit. Experiencing music is about the sound, the emotion, and the artist to subject's relationship, i.e. artist to their listening audience. It is not meant to be overly intellectualized, thought and thought and thought about. It is just to be experienced. I am very tentatively able to play the piano (below beginner).
It is not an intellectual exercise from that side of it either. That is to say, the listener doesn't need to be too intellectual, and neither does the performer. When I play the few songs I am able to play, or just one's I make up... it isn't about intellect. Although thought might play role, so do my muscles. My fingers need to practise the song, and know what the rhythm and feel of it is. To know to play several keys, then the next several different keys. My muscles have to learn that. At the same time, intellectually, I need to know what the keys are, what A B C D E F G, are, left hand right hand symbols etc. I can look at the notes or little booklet, and not know half of what it means, but still play the songs. For instance, I know how to play basic christmas songs. Even when I don't understand half the symbols, I remember the tune, and my fingers and memory just work it out, even if I'm not sure what sharps, flats, half notes, quarter note signs are, i know Joy to the World, so I know how long to hold the beat. There are a number of sides to it.
Same goes with philosophy. It isn't necessarily about intelligence. Everyone has a philosophy.
Mine's problem free. Like the Lion King. I'm aware of many that include gloomy stuff... but my view just offers a different perspective. Why things aren't gloomy, so I don't need to be 'uncomfortable'. I'm perfectly comfortable with the view I currently have on most things.
As for 'fixedness' it depends. My philosophy is not fixed. I change it all the time. But truth is still fixed, in my view. Again with music, you can say the 'truth' about good music is not fixed. Some people like jazz, others country, and so on. So there is no 'fixed' truth. But then that is just its own fixed truth, that 'good music' is not fixed, and that is fixed. But other things are much more fixed. I.e. the difference between classical music and punk rock music. There are certain sets of truths that characterize each. Even if you combined them so that you have some hybrid song, you would just have a new fixed truth. And then it would be some alternative kind of music. Not quite punk, not quite classical.
Our understanding, from the human perspective, of the universe is not fixed. But the universe does have a story to it. We look at it from our personal view. As in, evolution, how did life come to be. That is a big storyline for us, not necessarily for the whole universe. The real story, whatever it is, is truth, and not a relative one. Because it is fixed above whatever we perceive. From human perspective... sure maybe truth isn't so fixed. From a higher perspective, it is. Absolutes are absolute. Regardless if you try to make them relative.
"Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions."
My personal view differs only slightly. I don't have the requirement of an object. Phenomenology is conscious experience. They've given it a direction, that is a structure. Intentionality.
Anything to do with you as a person, and your first-person point of view, how you perceive and experience things is phenomenology. In certain circles, that is a very central part of philosophy, and while you might not want to identify with that, it still includes this.
Philosophy is way to broad. Directly translated, it is love of wisdom. However, in more realistic use, it could almost be deemed love of anything. For instance, wisdom and love can be found in many things. You might think philosophy is only an intellectual pursuit. Not at all. Whether smart or not, you have a philosophy. Even if the philosophy is completely counterintuitive to something intellectual. Love of music, would lead to a certain kind of philosophy.
Music might be ideal to demonstrate the point. Experiencing music, perhaps in itself, is not necessarily an intellectual pursuit. Experiencing music is about the sound, the emotion, and the artist to subject's relationship, i.e. artist to their listening audience. It is not meant to be overly intellectualized, thought and thought and thought about. It is just to be experienced. I am very tentatively able to play the piano (below beginner).
It is not an intellectual exercise from that side of it either. That is to say, the listener doesn't need to be too intellectual, and neither does the performer. When I play the few songs I am able to play, or just one's I make up... it isn't about intellect. Although thought might play role, so do my muscles. My fingers need to practise the song, and know what the rhythm and feel of it is. To know to play several keys, then the next several different keys. My muscles have to learn that. At the same time, intellectually, I need to know what the keys are, what A B C D E F G, are, left hand right hand symbols etc. I can look at the notes or little booklet, and not know half of what it means, but still play the songs. For instance, I know how to play basic christmas songs. Even when I don't understand half the symbols, I remember the tune, and my fingers and memory just work it out, even if I'm not sure what sharps, flats, half notes, quarter note signs are, i know Joy to the World, so I know how long to hold the beat. There are a number of sides to it.
Same goes with philosophy. It isn't necessarily about intelligence. Everyone has a philosophy.
Mine's problem free. Like the Lion King. I'm aware of many that include gloomy stuff... but my view just offers a different perspective. Why things aren't gloomy, so I don't need to be 'uncomfortable'. I'm perfectly comfortable with the view I currently have on most things.
As for 'fixedness' it depends. My philosophy is not fixed. I change it all the time. But truth is still fixed, in my view. Again with music, you can say the 'truth' about good music is not fixed. Some people like jazz, others country, and so on. So there is no 'fixed' truth. But then that is just its own fixed truth, that 'good music' is not fixed, and that is fixed. But other things are much more fixed. I.e. the difference between classical music and punk rock music. There are certain sets of truths that characterize each. Even if you combined them so that you have some hybrid song, you would just have a new fixed truth. And then it would be some alternative kind of music. Not quite punk, not quite classical.
Our understanding, from the human perspective, of the universe is not fixed. But the universe does have a story to it. We look at it from our personal view. As in, evolution, how did life come to be. That is a big storyline for us, not necessarily for the whole universe. The real story, whatever it is, is truth, and not a relative one. Because it is fixed above whatever we perceive. From human perspective... sure maybe truth isn't so fixed. From a higher perspective, it is. Absolutes are absolute. Regardless if you try to make them relative.
posted on November 29th, 2011, 10:19 pm
Sorry godsvoice, but you got the meaning of the term "Phenomenology" a bit wrong.
Phenomenology is a kind of philosophical school, if you will, that is a philosophical tradition, like Analytical Philosophy, Idealism, Empiricism, Rationalism etc. Phenomenology deals primarily with questions of perception and cognition.
Analytical Philosophy for example puts forth the premise that the base of any real cognition is objective truth. In order to establish something as true, it must be proven and provable objectively. That means, it must be true and given independently from the observer. Simply put: Something is there if it is there no matter if you look at it or not and it also must be the same for everyone else.
Phenomenology is interested not so much in that objective truth but in a kind of "subjective" truth as far as it can tell us something about our cognition. Not subjective in the sense of "I believe in it, so for me it is true", but "subjective" in the sense that the observed is dependent on the observer and the objective analysis can only be applied afterwards.
Take for example an optical illusion: if you hold a small coin close to your eyes it looks bigger than a sky scraper on the horizon. It is of course an illusion created through perspective. But even if you empirically and rationally know, that it is an illusion, you still can't help seeing the same illusion every time you hold a coin close to your eyes.
The aim of Phenomenological analysis here is not to dismiss empirical of objective truth, on the contrary. It aims at being more careful with applying the label of objective or even absolute truth because everyone has its blind spots. So the goal is (among other things) that of epistemological vigilance, if you will.
I think you also misunderstood the term "intentionality". It has nothing to do with "intention" or "direction" of experience or consciousness, but with content. Intentionality means, that there is no "pure" and objective cognition/perception which is then applied to something in order to gain knowledge about it. Cognition is always cognition of something (not only in the material sense). Take the example from above: you always see in perspective, you can rationalize it and deduce a more or less objective view from it, but you can never abstract from perspective because otherwise it wouldn't be seeing. This concept of "perspective" cognition is intentionality.
What you call phenomenology, I would more accurately call "Weltanschauung" (which is used in English too, iirc). The same applies to your use of the term "philosophy". I strongly oppose the notion, that a personal view on things is a philosophy.
Philosophy is a scientific discipline. And while it is not about intelligence (I agree with you there) it is about method and analysis. A view or an opinion is not a philosophy.
Always beware of philosophical terms that seem to be the same as their colloquial counterparts. They're almost always aren't. Apart from the terminological nitpickings I agree with your general arguments in this thread.
I hope my ramblings have been understandable. I'm not a native speaker and I'm not sure if I got all the correct English translation of some of the concepts (probably not).
@ewm90: Sorry, but this whole thing you're writing is not well thought out. It follows the general method of any esoterical hocus-pocus out there. It cannot be falsified.
If I here and now choose to teleport to China... and... dammit, it didn't work. Well the answer for that is simple: if anything can be achieved by choosing it, then I obviously just didn't choose hard enough.
Do you see where I'm going? What you postulate is nothing more than a very passive and blind form of religion. By the same logic, I could say: You can win the Olympics by believing in God, as simple as that! And if you don't succeed than you obviously didn't really believe in God.
Now before someone's religious feelings get hurt, I'm not talking about religion in general here. Every sane religious person can agree that this kind of logic is stupid, wether you believe in God(s) or not.
That's my 2 €-Cents...
Phenomenology is a kind of philosophical school, if you will, that is a philosophical tradition, like Analytical Philosophy, Idealism, Empiricism, Rationalism etc. Phenomenology deals primarily with questions of perception and cognition.
Analytical Philosophy for example puts forth the premise that the base of any real cognition is objective truth. In order to establish something as true, it must be proven and provable objectively. That means, it must be true and given independently from the observer. Simply put: Something is there if it is there no matter if you look at it or not and it also must be the same for everyone else.
Phenomenology is interested not so much in that objective truth but in a kind of "subjective" truth as far as it can tell us something about our cognition. Not subjective in the sense of "I believe in it, so for me it is true", but "subjective" in the sense that the observed is dependent on the observer and the objective analysis can only be applied afterwards.
Take for example an optical illusion: if you hold a small coin close to your eyes it looks bigger than a sky scraper on the horizon. It is of course an illusion created through perspective. But even if you empirically and rationally know, that it is an illusion, you still can't help seeing the same illusion every time you hold a coin close to your eyes.
The aim of Phenomenological analysis here is not to dismiss empirical of objective truth, on the contrary. It aims at being more careful with applying the label of objective or even absolute truth because everyone has its blind spots. So the goal is (among other things) that of epistemological vigilance, if you will.
I think you also misunderstood the term "intentionality". It has nothing to do with "intention" or "direction" of experience or consciousness, but with content. Intentionality means, that there is no "pure" and objective cognition/perception which is then applied to something in order to gain knowledge about it. Cognition is always cognition of something (not only in the material sense). Take the example from above: you always see in perspective, you can rationalize it and deduce a more or less objective view from it, but you can never abstract from perspective because otherwise it wouldn't be seeing. This concept of "perspective" cognition is intentionality.
What you call phenomenology, I would more accurately call "Weltanschauung" (which is used in English too, iirc). The same applies to your use of the term "philosophy". I strongly oppose the notion, that a personal view on things is a philosophy.
Philosophy is a scientific discipline. And while it is not about intelligence (I agree with you there) it is about method and analysis. A view or an opinion is not a philosophy.
Always beware of philosophical terms that seem to be the same as their colloquial counterparts. They're almost always aren't. Apart from the terminological nitpickings I agree with your general arguments in this thread.
I hope my ramblings have been understandable. I'm not a native speaker and I'm not sure if I got all the correct English translation of some of the concepts (probably not).
@ewm90: Sorry, but this whole thing you're writing is not well thought out. It follows the general method of any esoterical hocus-pocus out there. It cannot be falsified.
If I here and now choose to teleport to China... and... dammit, it didn't work. Well the answer for that is simple: if anything can be achieved by choosing it, then I obviously just didn't choose hard enough.
Do you see where I'm going? What you postulate is nothing more than a very passive and blind form of religion. By the same logic, I could say: You can win the Olympics by believing in God, as simple as that! And if you don't succeed than you obviously didn't really believe in God.
Now before someone's religious feelings get hurt, I'm not talking about religion in general here. Every sane religious person can agree that this kind of logic is stupid, wether you believe in God(s) or not.
That's my 2 €-Cents...
posted on November 30th, 2011, 1:55 am
Last edited by godsvoice on November 30th, 2011, 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nice to see another poster in the topic. To fully respond to your post... would be long, I'll see what I can do to make this to the point. I think you have a few misconceptions about philosophy though.
Yes, I stated my views on phenomenology were a bit different. Phenomenology deals with our experience of phenomenon. So yes, there is an objective part to it (all the phenomenon). But in large, it is not a scientific outlook in the way I interpret it -I mean, it is clearly a more subjective interpretation of matters, even if we structure it in certain objective ways, the field is looking at things through a subjective understanding.
I didn't define phenomenology wrong, I just quoted the site. The definition was the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Reliable enough, are you saying that I got that part wrong? Or that my later application was off. Did you read the site? It defined it. My views are slightly different... which I stated, so beyond that, I can't nitpick to much either, because that would extend into my own views of objectivity and subjectivity.
Who's view of phenomenology are you describing? This is more or less Heidegger's and Husserl's. I mean deals with perception and cognition... true. But you need a subject for that.
I wasn't commenting on intentionality.
I am more liberal with the use of the term philosophy I suppose. I.e. the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Yes, it was structured, he had a philosophy, and we adopted it. In some ways, I think his philosophy was wrong. But he had some interesting points. I agree, an 'opinion' or 'view' is not necessarily a philosophy. I would agree in some cases. It depends how demanding your view of having a 'philosophy' is. Philosophy is not just a science. Science is a part of philosophy. The main branches of philosophy would be: metaphysics, epistemology, science and logic (you can't reduce philosophy to a science, but you can have a scientific philosophy), politics, ethics and aesthetics.
Saying something like philosophy is a science would be a personal view of how philosophy should be applied. That would be opinion in my understanding. In more cases than not, philosophy is very different from science. Science requires proof, philosophy does not. Philosophy, in large, is content with the mere possibility of something. For instance, Descartes Malicious Demon" that was trying to deceive him. Is there any proof of such a being, absolutely not, but that's absolutely beside the point, there is a possibility that there is such a being, and he went from there.
A personal view on things... again, it's just where we draw the line. Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza all had a personal view on things, and they expanded them to a philosophy. Maybe what you are looking for is degree?
But "Philosophy is a scientific discipline." - > no. Absolutely not. That would be an opinion or view of philosophy. Science is a part of philosophy. Philosophy, in a metaphysical sense, is not scientific at all. There is the metaphysical side (above physical, so beyond science) and ethics, and aesthetics. There is a method to it regardless of which way you go, but it needn't be strictly science.
Some of your differentiations on phenomenology though... I'm really not sure. I think some points were clarified. But again, I think you really came at it with a scientific mindset, in some ways, that might miss the point. A scientific view of phenomenology, might be different to the philosophical one, which might be different to the psychological one. That it is ordering 'objective reality' for 'subjective perception' and understanding. Philosophy of Mind. Philosophers aren't all convinced that there even is an external objective reality. Some think it is all just a subjective extension of the mind. Of course, theirs would not be popularized in today's culture... but they're still there.
Sorry, I don't think I responded to all your points directly... but hopefully we can work with what I wrote above for a bit. The posts here are all a bit long, so yeah, takes time.
But again, phenomenology as "I believe in it, so for me it is true" no, that's not phenomenology, that is relative truth. I'm not sure, but I think you took some parts of my post and applied it to others parts, when the two weren't meant to be connected, necessarily.
We might need to clarify a few things.
Edit: Again, philosophy comes from Greek: Love of Wisdom. There is nothing saying that love of wisdom is something that has to be scientifically pursued. That is not philosophy. But you could get people who, in their view, would say that a scientific philosophy, a scientific method, would be the right way to go. But it still wouldn't reduce philosophy to a science.
Yes, I stated my views on phenomenology were a bit different. Phenomenology deals with our experience of phenomenon. So yes, there is an objective part to it (all the phenomenon). But in large, it is not a scientific outlook in the way I interpret it -I mean, it is clearly a more subjective interpretation of matters, even if we structure it in certain objective ways, the field is looking at things through a subjective understanding.
I didn't define phenomenology wrong, I just quoted the site. The definition was the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Reliable enough, are you saying that I got that part wrong? Or that my later application was off. Did you read the site? It defined it. My views are slightly different... which I stated, so beyond that, I can't nitpick to much either, because that would extend into my own views of objectivity and subjectivity.
Who's view of phenomenology are you describing? This is more or less Heidegger's and Husserl's. I mean deals with perception and cognition... true. But you need a subject for that.
I wasn't commenting on intentionality.
I am more liberal with the use of the term philosophy I suppose. I.e. the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Yes, it was structured, he had a philosophy, and we adopted it. In some ways, I think his philosophy was wrong. But he had some interesting points. I agree, an 'opinion' or 'view' is not necessarily a philosophy. I would agree in some cases. It depends how demanding your view of having a 'philosophy' is. Philosophy is not just a science. Science is a part of philosophy. The main branches of philosophy would be: metaphysics, epistemology, science and logic (you can't reduce philosophy to a science, but you can have a scientific philosophy), politics, ethics and aesthetics.
Saying something like philosophy is a science would be a personal view of how philosophy should be applied. That would be opinion in my understanding. In more cases than not, philosophy is very different from science. Science requires proof, philosophy does not. Philosophy, in large, is content with the mere possibility of something. For instance, Descartes Malicious Demon" that was trying to deceive him. Is there any proof of such a being, absolutely not, but that's absolutely beside the point, there is a possibility that there is such a being, and he went from there.
A personal view on things... again, it's just where we draw the line. Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza all had a personal view on things, and they expanded them to a philosophy. Maybe what you are looking for is degree?
But "Philosophy is a scientific discipline." - > no. Absolutely not. That would be an opinion or view of philosophy. Science is a part of philosophy. Philosophy, in a metaphysical sense, is not scientific at all. There is the metaphysical side (above physical, so beyond science) and ethics, and aesthetics. There is a method to it regardless of which way you go, but it needn't be strictly science.
Some of your differentiations on phenomenology though... I'm really not sure. I think some points were clarified. But again, I think you really came at it with a scientific mindset, in some ways, that might miss the point. A scientific view of phenomenology, might be different to the philosophical one, which might be different to the psychological one. That it is ordering 'objective reality' for 'subjective perception' and understanding. Philosophy of Mind. Philosophers aren't all convinced that there even is an external objective reality. Some think it is all just a subjective extension of the mind. Of course, theirs would not be popularized in today's culture... but they're still there.
Sorry, I don't think I responded to all your points directly... but hopefully we can work with what I wrote above for a bit. The posts here are all a bit long, so yeah, takes time.
But again, phenomenology as "I believe in it, so for me it is true" no, that's not phenomenology, that is relative truth. I'm not sure, but I think you took some parts of my post and applied it to others parts, when the two weren't meant to be connected, necessarily.
We might need to clarify a few things.
Edit: Again, philosophy comes from Greek: Love of Wisdom. There is nothing saying that love of wisdom is something that has to be scientifically pursued. That is not philosophy. But you could get people who, in their view, would say that a scientific philosophy, a scientific method, would be the right way to go. But it still wouldn't reduce philosophy to a science.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 2:46 am
Well what ever the definition is its not relay the point of this topic. Speaking clearly and concise its very important, if you are not using clear and understandable words, you "could take on be understood is not as important as displaying knowledge". If this it is the case you feel I or other dont think you are smart you are mistaken.
if you can say some thing in 5 letters its better then 45 words.
if you can say some thing in 5 letters its better then 45 words.
godsvoice wrote:Nice to see another poster in the topic. To fully respond to your post... would be long, I'll see what I can do to make this to the point. I think you have a few misconceptions about philosophy though.
Yes, I stated my views on phenomenology were a bit different. Phenomenology deals with our experience of phenomenon. So yes, there is an objective part to it (all the phenomenon). But in large, it is not a scientific outlook in the way I interpret it -I mean, it is clearly a more subjective interpretation of matters, even if we structure it in certain objective ways, the field is looking at things through a subjective understanding.
I didn't define phenomenology wrong, I just quoted the site. The definition was the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Reliable enough, are you saying that I got that part wrong? Or that my later application was off. Did you read the site? It defined it. My views are slightly different... which I stated, so beyond that, I can't nitpick to much either, because that would extend into my own views of objectivity and subjectivity.
Who's view of phenomenology are you describing? This is more or less Heidegger's and Husserl's. I mean deals with perception and cognition... true. But you need a subject for that.
I wasn't commenting on intentionality.
I am more liberal with the use of the term philosophy I suppose. I.e. the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Yes, it was structured, he had a philosophy, and we adopted it. In some ways, I think his philosophy was wrong. But he had some interesting points. I agree, an 'opinion' or 'view' is not necessarily a philosophy. I would agree in some cases. It depends how demanding your view of having a 'philosophy' is. Philosophy is not just a science. Science is a part of philosophy. The main branches of philosophy would be: metaphysics, epistemology, science and logic (you can't reduce philosophy to a science, but you can have a scientific philosophy), politics, ethics and aesthetics.
Saying something like philosophy is a science would be a personal view of how philosophy should be applied. That would be opinion in my understanding. In more cases than not, philosophy is very different from science. Science requires proof, philosophy does not. Philosophy, in large, is content with the mere possibility of something. For instance, Descartes Malicious Demon" that was trying to deceive him. Is there any proof of such a being, absolutely not, but that's absolutely beside the point, there is a possibility that there is such a being, and he went from there.
A personal view on things... again, it's just where we draw the line. Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza all had a personal view on things, and they expanded them to a philosophy. Maybe what you are looking for is degree?
But "Philosophy is a scientific discipline." - > no. Absolutely not. That would be an opinion or view of philosophy. Science is a part of philosophy. Philosophy, in a metaphysical sense, is not scientific at all. There is the metaphysical side (above physical, so beyond science) and ethics, and aesthetics. There is a method to it regardless of which way you go, but it needn't be strictly science.
Some of your differentiations on phenomenology though... I'm really not sure. I think some points were clarified. But again, I think you really came at it with a scientific mindset, in some ways, that might miss the point. A scientific view of phenomenology, might be different to the philosophical one, which might be different to the psychological one. That it is ordering 'objective reality' for 'subjective perception' and understanding. Philosophy of Mind. Philosophers aren't all convinced that there even is an external objective reality. Some think it is all just a subjective extension of the mind. Of course, theirs would not be popularized in today's culture... but they're still there.
Sorry, I don't think I responded to all your points directly... but hopefully we can work with what I wrote above for a bit. The posts here are all a bit long, so yeah, takes time.
But again, phenomenology as "I believe in it, so for me it is true" no, that's not phenomenology, that is relative truth. I'm not sure, but I think you took some parts of my post and applied it to others parts, when the two weren't meant to be connected, necessarily.
We might need to clarify a few things.
Edit: Again, philosophy comes from Greek: Love of Wisdom. There is nothing saying that love of wisdom is something that has to be scientifically pursued. That is not philosophy. But you could get people who, in their view, would say that a scientific philosophy, a scientific method, would be the right way to go. But it still wouldn't reduce philosophy to a science.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 2:57 am
Yes, being concise is good. Sometimes I could be much better at that.
However, between short and long phrases it is still a matter of completeness.
Saying "Choose", does not explain what choose is.
Again, I've only read your posts, not watched the vids. So I'm relying on your outline and posts to understand.
However, between short and long phrases it is still a matter of completeness.
Saying "Choose", does not explain what choose is.
Again, I've only read your posts, not watched the vids. So I'm relying on your outline and posts to understand.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 3:05 am
As I said be for choosing is not some thing you can expand effectively its some thing you have to be walked through. Witch is the way experiential learning is.
However, between short and long phrases it is still a matter of completeness.
Well if people get frustrated and dont read what there is to read just get a pace of what there is to get then I would say thats not completeness.
However, between short and long phrases it is still a matter of completeness.
Well if people get frustrated and dont read what there is to read just get a pace of what there is to get then I would say thats not completeness.
and I dont think there is a efective way to do so.Saying "Choose", does not explain what choose is.
I am concerned your waiting for me to give you a answer to some thing that can not be answered in the way you are asking for.Again, I've only read your posts, not watched the vids. So I'm relying on your outline and posts to understand.
godsvoice wrote:Yes, being concise is good. Sometimes I could be much better at that.
However, between short and long phrases it is still a matter of completeness.
Saying "Choose", does not explain what choose is.
Again, I've only read your posts, not watched the vids. So I'm relying on your outline and posts to understand.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 3:50 am
So, because of the above, I'm asking where is this thread going. Because to me, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
If it can't be related or explained, only experienced, then my interpretation is - music.
I can't explain music to you over the internet. There's this really good song I know... but you would have to listen to it, and experience it for yourself for it to be meaningful. I can tell you the lyrics or the beat, but that is not the same as you hearing it.
If it is just about giving us the topic - choose, but not expanding on it... well ok. But what are we going to do then?
Then it just ends with us going off to try and experience this on our own.
If it can't be related or explained, only experienced, then my interpretation is - music.
I can't explain music to you over the internet. There's this really good song I know... but you would have to listen to it, and experience it for yourself for it to be meaningful. I can tell you the lyrics or the beat, but that is not the same as you hearing it.
If it is just about giving us the topic - choose, but not expanding on it... well ok. But what are we going to do then?
Then it just ends with us going off to try and experience this on our own.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 6:32 am
Machiner: Quoted from a different source for phenomenology:
"A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness."
I think we differed more with our views of philosophy.
I never meant to imply that phenomenology is a form of relative truth.. directly. Where what you believe is your truth. I agree with the word below you provided for that case.
Weltanschauung: From memory and what I understood it to mean... was essentially "world view"?
Alternatively, phenomenology is still a position where you are perceiving things based on how they take place within human consciousness. It deals directly with your experience, through your awareness. It is not so much concerned with the object, as the object in itself, but your awareness of it, and the event.
Stressing: not of anything independent of human consciousness. It is a very subjective approach (entirely dependent on human consciousness). Which is where I think the connection to relative truth could seemingly have been made. The idea that what I experience as being red, could be different from what you experience as being red. My red could be your purple.. and how would we ever know? A basic example for this stuff.
"A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness."
I think we differed more with our views of philosophy.
I never meant to imply that phenomenology is a form of relative truth.. directly. Where what you believe is your truth. I agree with the word below you provided for that case.
Weltanschauung: From memory and what I understood it to mean... was essentially "world view"?
Alternatively, phenomenology is still a position where you are perceiving things based on how they take place within human consciousness. It deals directly with your experience, through your awareness. It is not so much concerned with the object, as the object in itself, but your awareness of it, and the event.
Stressing: not of anything independent of human consciousness. It is a very subjective approach (entirely dependent on human consciousness). Which is where I think the connection to relative truth could seemingly have been made. The idea that what I experience as being red, could be different from what you experience as being red. My red could be your purple.. and how would we ever know? A basic example for this stuff.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 2:22 pm
@godsvoice:
I know that you got the definition from Stanford. But I think you misunderstood the definition. I say that because you wrote about "my phenomenology" or "this is a phenomenology". Phenomenology, as I said, is a school of thought and a method, like Rationalism etc. You cannot say "this is my phenomenology", as you cannot say "this is my rationalism" or "this is my analytical philosophy".
We say "Husserl's Phenomenology" or "Heidegger's Phenomenology" because those are different methods, applications and attempts at Phenomenology.
I'm afraid absolutely yes.
Philosophy is not a natural science like physics or biology, but it is a science nonetheless. Philosophy is about method and analysis, not about opinion or view. You can believe me on that. I studied philosophy (and to no small extent exactly the Phenomenology of Heidegger and Husserl).
Metaphysics is not "above physics", "meta" means "behind". It beasically deals with cause(s). The name goes back to Aristotle's books on metaphysics, which he himself called "first philosophy". The term "metaphysics" was coind in the library of Alexandria, because Aristotle's books on the first philosophy were storaged behind his books on physics.
Again, always be careful with colloquial meaning of philosophical terms. They very often get the meaning of the original term quite wrong.
Please do not think of me as a pedantic know-it-all or something like that. I don't want to be nitpicky, but these are common misconceptions about philosophy that always bug me and I feel compelled to clarify them.
I know that you got the definition from Stanford. But I think you misunderstood the definition. I say that because you wrote about "my phenomenology" or "this is a phenomenology". Phenomenology, as I said, is a school of thought and a method, like Rationalism etc. You cannot say "this is my phenomenology", as you cannot say "this is my rationalism" or "this is my analytical philosophy".
We say "Husserl's Phenomenology" or "Heidegger's Phenomenology" because those are different methods, applications and attempts at Phenomenology.
But "Philosophy is a scientific discipline." - > no. Absolutely not. That would be an opinion or view of philosophy. Science is a part of philosophy. Philosophy, in a metaphysical sense, is not scientific at all. There is the metaphysical side (above physical, so beyond science) and ethics, and aesthetics. There is a method to it regardless of which way you go, but it needn't be strictly science.
I'm afraid absolutely yes.
Philosophy is not a natural science like physics or biology, but it is a science nonetheless. Philosophy is about method and analysis, not about opinion or view. You can believe me on that. I studied philosophy (and to no small extent exactly the Phenomenology of Heidegger and Husserl).Metaphysics is not "above physics", "meta" means "behind". It beasically deals with cause(s). The name goes back to Aristotle's books on metaphysics, which he himself called "first philosophy". The term "metaphysics" was coind in the library of Alexandria, because Aristotle's books on the first philosophy were storaged behind his books on physics.
Again, always be careful with colloquial meaning of philosophical terms. They very often get the meaning of the original term quite wrong.
Please do not think of me as a pedantic know-it-all or something like that. I don't want to be nitpicky, but these are common misconceptions about philosophy that always bug me and I feel compelled to clarify them.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 7:06 pm
Last edited by ewm90 on November 30th, 2011, 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If it is just about giving us the topic - choose, but not expanding on it... well ok. But what are we going to do then?
Can you expand how to ride a bite, yes. expanding a bike dose not help some one ride it.
I will give you examples:
a. a woman how has bean trying to loss wait for 2 years, how is frustrated because, she has it here wait is let letter her find a good man, chooses she body go's out and finds the man of her dreams.
b. a man how has always wonted to be a astronaut, at the age of 70 has given up trying to be a astronaut. Choose to be a astronaut and registers for space school (even knowing its unlikely he will see space he now is on the path).
c. a guy sitting on the coach has bean fitting with his sister for 17 years, choses to call and find some thing to applies for and restores the relationship.
d. a woman how has no money and lives in a run down home and is depressed she has no money, choses her home and she stops being depressed. (did not change any thing except for her experience).
e. a man how has all way wonting to go skydiving and has a opportunity for the 1st time in his life relises he needs to do his tax's she choose not to.
-- whats not choosing:
a. a woman how has a drug problem shoots up in stead of geting help.
b. a Man knows his boss is mad at him for some thing he did that was a mistake and the boss is clearly over reacting, the man starts spreading roomers about his boss.
c. a Man with a wate problem balms his his mom for his pore eating habits.
d. a woman has the opportunity to for give his brother hurting there family in stead focused on trying to fix his problem.
e. A man hit his wife for cheating on him and his wife is filing a law suit agist him, the man fines one back calming the wife committed criminal negligence. (with out talking to one another before filing)
Choosing: is with out reasons or excises.
choose [chooz] Show IPA verb, chose; cho·sen or ( Obsolete ) chose; choos·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.
2.
to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.
3.
to want; desire.
4.
(especially in children's games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I'll choose you to see who gets to bat first.
godsvoice wrote:So, because of the above, I'm asking where is this thread going. Because to me, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
If it can't be related or explained, only experienced, then my interpretation is - music.
I can't explain music to you over the internet. There's this really good song I know... but you would have to listen to it, and experience it for yourself for it to be meaningful. I can tell you the lyrics or the beat, but that is not the same as you hearing it.
If it is just about giving us the topic - choose, but not expanding on it... well ok. But what are we going to do then?
Then it just ends with us going off to try and experience this on our own.
choose:
Choosing is not always some thing you need to pick between some thing.
posted on November 30th, 2011, 7:14 pm
Last edited by godsvoice on November 30th, 2011, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Instead of phenomenology - philosophy. And as for that, I have no problem with people saying "this is my philosophy on life" (referring to their personal views). Which is essentially the same as saying this is my world view, which I understand to be the same as what you were suggesting earlier. All philosophies stem from people who held and created them. The philosophy of Descartes... so oddly enough, I'm still confused by what you mean. Philosophy, even as being a science, is still something an individual can have. ... pleasantly weird, but yeah, not sure what you are speaking against. People can't say they have a philosophy, as in my philosophy is...?
As for science... well ok. Between natural sciences and social sciences... it would be. If you are going to include science as anything to do with knowledge. I guess you could work it in that way. But you clearly have a philosophical branch of ethics and aesthetics, that I agree would have method to it, like I already stated, but it isn't really science like ... five senses kind of science. Ha, it is a little nitpicky in my view... but I can understand as far as wanting to make the point. But in my posts, I was considering science strictly as physical science (five senses). I thought you were localizing philosophy into natural science itself. My mistake. Apologies.
Well, I know the story... but the books were actually found after his books on physics, were they not? Are you sure you have the correct information here... I mean, if it's a common misconception, that's actually pretty funny. Meta is either, with, above, beyond or after. I don't know anywhere that it translates to behind, latin greek or otherwise. Again, are you sure about this? I mean, is this from when you were a student, or do you actually have some book you can reference this to? Pretty interesting, but I'm 99.99 % sure 'meta' is not 'behind' or 'before' or 'below'. I can see what you mean with 'first' philosophy, because I know that phrase too. In any case, interesting... but meta - really, I don't think it's behind. With, beyond, above, or after. Yes?
Chronologically though, it would make sense. Socrates - Plato - Aristotle. Metaphysics was stressed by Plato/socrates... so that did come before Aristotle and his physics. Still... in usage... meta at best would be with physics. Not behind.
As for science... well ok. Between natural sciences and social sciences... it would be. If you are going to include science as anything to do with knowledge. I guess you could work it in that way. But you clearly have a philosophical branch of ethics and aesthetics, that I agree would have method to it, like I already stated, but it isn't really science like ... five senses kind of science. Ha, it is a little nitpicky in my view... but I can understand as far as wanting to make the point. But in my posts, I was considering science strictly as physical science (five senses). I thought you were localizing philosophy into natural science itself. My mistake. Apologies.
Well, I know the story... but the books were actually found after his books on physics, were they not? Are you sure you have the correct information here... I mean, if it's a common misconception, that's actually pretty funny. Meta is either, with, above, beyond or after. I don't know anywhere that it translates to behind, latin greek or otherwise. Again, are you sure about this? I mean, is this from when you were a student, or do you actually have some book you can reference this to? Pretty interesting, but I'm 99.99 % sure 'meta' is not 'behind' or 'before' or 'below'. I can see what you mean with 'first' philosophy, because I know that phrase too. In any case, interesting... but meta - really, I don't think it's behind. With, beyond, above, or after. Yes?
Chronologically though, it would make sense. Socrates - Plato - Aristotle. Metaphysics was stressed by Plato/socrates... so that did come before Aristotle and his physics. Still... in usage... meta at best would be with physics. Not behind.
posted on December 6th, 2011, 2:50 am
Here is what available for people when they get mind over body AKA transformation:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cs7ejxEnIGU#![/youtube]
None of this was posable be for it was done. The truth we know is only based on what we know.
If you are interested in a life with out limits you will wont to be very interested in this stuff.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cs7ejxEnIGU#![/youtube]
None of this was posable be for it was done. The truth we know is only based on what we know.
If you are interested in a life with out limits you will wont to be very interested in this stuff.
posted on December 6th, 2011, 3:10 am
Last edited by Tryptic on December 6th, 2011, 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well, at least you finally got to the point with the mind-over-body. ewm90, I can tell that you feel strongly about this concept and want to share it, but I have no intention of discussing it until you start being more clear.
WHERE are you coming from with this stuff? WHERE did you hear it and what organization teaches it? If it was just an idea you wouldn't try to defend it when people apply their interpretation, which makes me think that it's coming from some group of people you're now a part of. Who are they, and what do they believe?
All these videos mean nothing if you can't tie them together and present something of substance. Otherwise any discussion will be like grasping for the wind.
For example, I'm a big fan of Descartes. His absolute statement, "I think therefore I am" is sheer brilliance if you read the original essay, and it's only the beginning. His proof that God exists is compelling: every time I hear someone say they've proved him wrong I look into their logic and it doesn't hold up.
WHERE are you coming from with this stuff? WHERE did you hear it and what organization teaches it? If it was just an idea you wouldn't try to defend it when people apply their interpretation, which makes me think that it's coming from some group of people you're now a part of. Who are they, and what do they believe?
All these videos mean nothing if you can't tie them together and present something of substance. Otherwise any discussion will be like grasping for the wind.
For example, I'm a big fan of Descartes. His absolute statement, "I think therefore I am" is sheer brilliance if you read the original essay, and it's only the beginning. His proof that God exists is compelling: every time I hear someone say they've proved him wrong I look into their logic and it doesn't hold up.
posted on December 6th, 2011, 3:22 am
Last edited by ewm90 on December 6th, 2011, 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well, at least you finally got to the point with the mind-over-body.
Or you finally got the point. :thumbsup:
I have lived this stuff now for over 5 years and I am clear that this stuff is a key to have a amazing life and having it quickly.WHERE are you coming from with this stuff?
I am not share where I herd it 1st, Its all around us meny times in peaces or misunderstood. I learned how it works from a organizations called Landmark education now I am learning it from another organization.WHERE did you hear it and what organization teaches it?
The group I am now part of Is life couching and they believe every one can have asses to the life they love and they can give them asses to that life. ( I did not say earlier because I am not trying to promote my self here witch in line with the site I am posting on rules.)If it was just an idea you wouldn't try to defend it when people apply their interpretation, which makes me think that it's coming from some group of people you're now a part of. Who are they, and what do they believe?
You are correct I could have done a better job of starting this topic it when off corse. I was trying to contenue Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations - the only thing that comes between, You and what you wont is "you". instead of starting a new topic that would have bean better I think.All these videos mean nothing if you can't tie them together and present something of substance. Otherwise any discussion will be like grasping for the wind.
Tryptic wrote:Well, at least you finally got to the point with the mind-over-body. ewm90, I can tell that you feel strongly about this concept and want to share it, but I have no intention of discussing it until you start being more clear.
WHERE are you coming from with this stuff? WHERE did you hear it and what organization teaches it? If it was just an idea you wouldn't try to defend it when people apply their interpretation, which makes me think that it's coming from some group of people you're now a part of. Who are they, and what do they believe?
All these videos mean nothing if you can't tie them together and present something of substance. Otherwise any discussion will be like grasping for the wind.
posted on December 6th, 2011, 4:08 am
Okay, I've heard of Landmark. It sounds like good stuff, I just couldn't afford to throw down $500 for the seminar. I'm glad to hear you're taking good advice and running with it, but what's the point of telling us here?
I don't think the devs would have a problem if you're honestly excited and just want to tell people about it. That might be promotion, but not in a bad way.
One heads-up though, your spelling is really bad. You might want to look over that last post and fix a couple mistakes
I counted 14 of them.
I don't think the devs would have a problem if you're honestly excited and just want to tell people about it. That might be promotion, but not in a bad way.
One heads-up though, your spelling is really bad. You might want to look over that last post and fix a couple mistakes
I counted 14 of them. Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests