| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 09:48:50 AM
|
| Andrew: a marathon -- a twenty-six mile run -- in ten minutes? Stop and think about what Aaron is talking about here. Really fast runners can run a mile -- one mile -- in a little under four minutes. You're running the risk here of looking like a philosopher, i.e., someone who's completely out of touch with reality! The handmaids are listening, you know, and they're having a tough time suppressing a chuckle. |
 |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 09:49:26 AM
|
And now, Katie: isn't it quite clear what I mean by the expression "in touch with" in this context from what I said right at the end of my lecture on Philosophy and Reality? quote:
If..."What is it?" questions [of the kind that Sokrates is always asking] are truly central to philosophy -- and most philosophers down through the ages would say that they are -- then not only is it true that philosophers are in touch with reality or else doing their level best to get in touch with reality. It's also true that philosophy just is the activity of getting in touch and staying in touch with all these things we're now calling the realities of the real: bringing the natures or essences of things to light, figuring out the answers to all those lovely Sokratic "What is it?" questions.
Getting in touch and staying in touch with the realities is the activity of bringing the natures or essences of things to light, figuring out the answers to all those lovely Sokratic "What is it?" questions. It's concerning yourself with the natures or essences of things, caring about these, keeping them in mind. If what you mean by "being literally in touch" with something is being in physical contact with it, then no, I'm not talking about that. Nothing can be in physical contact with the being of anything because the being of beings isn't physical. Even the being of physical things, the physicality of the physical, isn't itself anything physical.
Think about what it is to get in touch with the environment, say, and to stay in touch with the environment. I don't know if what we're using here is a metaphor or not, but don't we think that to get in touch and stay in touch with the environment is just to concern yourself with the environment, to care about it, to keep it in mind? Isn't it simply to conduct yourself in such a way that the environment is really salient for you, one of the most salient things in your life? Isn't it to live your life in such a way that you really give thought to the environment and never forget about it, never let it slip into the oblivion -- the forgottenness, the ignoredness -- that it's always in for the oblivious?
Now, I don't know whether or not this reminder of what I've said will incline you to change what you've said about the impossibility of being in touch with the goodness of the good, the essence of the things that are good, or about the impossibility of "grasping" the being of beings, but if it doesn't, I'd be really interested in knowing why you think this is impossible. You say repeatedly in your most recent entry that you think that this is impossible, but you don't offer any sort of argument in support of that claim. Even Menon had an argument of sorts for his view that philosophical inquiry -- the attempt to answer such "What is it?" questions as "What is the goodness of the good?" -- is utterly futile. Are you basing your position on that argument, or are you basing it on some other argument? Or is your position just a baseless prejudice -- a position that isn't based on any argument at all? |
|
|
|
Katie Contreras
Apprentice
29 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 7:24:36 PM
|
| Some of these questions about essence are admittedly harder than others, but if it's not possible to answer any of them, then it's not even possible to answer the easiest ones. Let's start with an easy one. What's a circle? You know: the sort of shape a geometer would call a circle? Tell me what's wrong with this answer: a circle is the locus of all the points in a given plane that are equidistant from a given point in that plane. If this is right, then being a circle (the circularity of circles) is just being the locus of all the points in a given plane that are equidistant from a given point in that plane. |
|
|
|
Katie Contreras
Apprentice
29 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 07:59:10 AM
|
| And do you have a reason for thinking that it's impossible to answer the harder ones? If not, then why on earth are you throwing in the towel? Do you think that difficulty is the same thing as impossibility? Or do you just give up on everything that isn't easy? |
|
|
|
Cassie Vrooman
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 12:09:46 AM
|
Christine: You have said that "reality is always changing." How is this possible? We are discussing reality as the being of beings and I do not see how that can change; for example, the being of a desk, how can that change? Or the livingness of living, how can that change?
Katie: I would like you to clear something up for me. I am clear on the fact that you do not think philosophers are in touch with reality as you have made that point eminently clear; however, in your post on the 22nd at 5:06 pm you said to Aaron, "I still feel like an average person could be in touch with reality even if he is not a philosopher." I am confused. This statement, to me, implies that philosophers can be in touch with reality. Did you mean to say something else, or do I understand your meaning incorrectly?
I think it is absolutely possible to be in touch with the being of beings. I see these things as abstractions of the mind, but understanding them is far from impossible, as Tom has shown with his example about circles. It seems to me that bringing to light the being of beings is a major concern of Socrates, and as he is a philosopher, I would be hard pressed to say that no philosophers are in touch with reality.
|
|
|
|
Richard Mikel
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 2:16:45 PM
|
I haven't caught up completely, but I would like to add to this question of "if a philosopher isn't in touch with reality, no one can be" or the general idea of that statement. Some people are wonderfully talented in the arts, but choose to pursue them as a hobby. For example, children in Japan memorize entire wind band concerts and play them perfectly as a group without music in front of their eyes. That's roughly 30-50 middle-school-aged kids memorizing at least 5 minutes per piece of music, likely more. Furthermore they are performing on a national level, with national attention. Yet not all of these children end up being musicians. Does that mean that when they go off and do something else with their lives, they are incapable of understanding music or musical thought? If not, is someone who isn't a philosopher incapable of philosophical thought and, further, incapable of being in touch with realities? Maybe all this just has to do with expectations....
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 3:29:48 PM
|
| Aaron should certainly give you his own answer to your question, Richard, but note that in the post in which he explained what he had in mind in saying, in the first place, that he was wondering if it might not be true that if philosophers are not in touch with reality, then no one is in touch with reality, he spoke only of devoted philosophers. He didn't speak only of professional philosophers or people with degrees in philosophy. He didn't speak only of of people who make their living doing philosophy (if indeed there are now or ever have been people who have managed to make a living doing philosophy!). He didn't even speak only of people who are thought of as philosophers. He spoke only of people who are devoted to philosophy in the way that devoted runners are devoted to running. So while I'm not sure just what you're asking, I kind of expect Aaron is going to reply by saying that there might well be people who aren't professional philosophers, who don't have advanced degrees in philosophy, who don't make a living doing philosophy, and who aren't even generally thought of as philosophers who are in touch with the realities. We'll have to see though. What is your answer to this question of Richard's, Aaron? |
|
|
|
John Koban
Apprentice
40 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2010 : 4:10:04 PM
|
I don't think those children Richard spoke of are likely to be incapable of music or musical thought, but with music especially, if one does not keep up it is really hard to stay sharp. I have a relative who was accepted at Julliard, decided not to go for whatever reason, and now cannot play a lick of piano. I think that the same could be true of philosophy. Obviously there are no moving physical parts with philosophy, but maybe some of the same kind of dynamic is there. If one takes up philosophy for a few years and then moves on with life, probably thirty or forty years later the philosophy will not come so easily.
I think that it would be difficult for most people who are not formally trained in philosophy to just take it up. It would be the rare average Joe who could go down to Borders and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason and get anything out of it. I am not saying that it is impossible for non-philosophers to pick up philosophical thought, but I do say that it is incredibly difficult. Now does this mean that the average Joe cannot be in touch with reality? I think that Joe isn't going to be consciously in touch with reality is the way a philosopher is, but I think that there will be some realities with which he might well be in touch, by accident, simply as a result of living and experiencing things. For example suppose Joe goes to the zoo and looks at the lions, and right next to him is some kind of feline specialist looking at the same lion--they both recognize the reality of the lion, but the specialist will have a deeper understanding of the lion because of special training. I think the same thing applies to philosophers and non-philosophers; the philosopher is consciously aware of reality, whereas the non-philosopher is unconsciously experiencing reality. Or maybe this is all bull; I am probably out of touch with reality anyway.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
Edited by - John Koban on Jun 25 2010 4:11:43 PM |
|
|
|
Aaron Mund
Apprentice
37 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Jun 26 2010 : 11:38:36 AM
|
| Aaron, did my editing of what you posted back on June 21 alter your meaning or otherwise obscure what you wanted to say? If so, feel free to go back and fix it. You can edit your posts too. |
|
|
|
Richard Mikel
Apprentice
32 Posts |
|
|
Christine Gylling
Fledgling
18 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 5:38:37 PM
|
Cassie: You asked,"How is this possible that reality is always changing? The being of a desk, how can that change?"
Well, reality is not just the physical presence of beings. Reality includes everything that it is and has being. The five senses make us feel that the world is real. Seeing the desk, feeling the presence of the desk, we find it undeniable that the desk exists. It is hard to deny what we see, and everything looks real, so we stop questioning the reality. Our minds interpret the five senses and accept everything as real without questioning. So when we bump into the desk, we feel the pain and it is difficult to say that we are imagining it. Therefore, if reality is everything and we live in a dynamic world surrounded by everything that exists, then reality is not constant.
Richard: Although some things do not come naturally to all, such as philosophical thinking, you've said that it can be acquired. And if that's true, then philosophers are acquiring skills to be in touch with reality. I don't think philosophers are trying to be in touch with reality. In fact, I think they try not to be in touch with reality so that they can achieve the state of acquiring the truth for which they search all their lives. Our senses are always getting in the way of our thinking like real philosophers. Philosophers are not in touch with the reality of the senses; that is the distraction of the body. Therefore they must not be in touch with reality to achieve the same state as a soul and truly get to the bottom of philosophy. Therefore, I do not agree with the remark John made on the 25th: "the philosopher is consciously aware of reality, whereas the non-philosopher is unconsciously experiencing reality."
Philosophers recognize that our minds rely on the five senses, therefore reality is how our mind interpret it. Socrates emphasizes that we should not rely solely on our senses. I think this is the reason why he said it. Relying on our senses clouds our minds with what reality is and makes it impossible for us to think beyond that because our minds do not question our senses.
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Cassie Vrooman
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 9:36:18 PM
|
Christine: in your answer, you seem to be talking about reality in the modern sense of the term. It's an excellent explanation of how reality in that sense of the word can change. Do you also think that the realities, the being of beings, can change? That was the question I was originally asking, so I apologize if that was unclear.
|
|
|
|
Jenna Stimac
Apprentice
28 Posts |
|
|
Katie Contreras
Apprentice
29 Posts |
|
|
Christine Gylling
Fledgling
18 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 10:49:17 PM
|
I misinterpreted your question then, Cassie. Many would say that physical objects are real and they exist independently of human contemplation. Objects such as a desk do not change depending upon our thought about them. They exist objectively whether we think about them or not. However, when we interpret reality using our senses, the reality becomes dynamic. If we base our judgments just on the senses of touch and sight, then reality is constant and the deskhood of a desk always will be the same. Yes, we can't use all five senses to determine the good, the beautiful, and the just, but if we observe the evidences to support what is good, beautiful, and just, don't we have to use all five senses objectively?
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Jenna Stimac
Apprentice
28 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 11:11:59 PM
|
Katie, as I understand it, the deskhood of a desk is simply its having properties it has: its being four-legged, wooden, squarish, say, two feet by one and a half feet. I might be mistaken, but that is what I have taken talk about the desk's deskhood to mean.
Christine, I guess I don't follow when you say "if we observe the evidences to support what is good, beautiful, and just, don't we have to use all five senses objectively?" Could you explain that further?
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Christine Gylling
Fledgling
18 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Are Philosophers in Touch with Reality?
