Philosophers are born, not made ?

[turionx2]

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere.

 

Anyone else feel that logic and philosophy are inborn abilities?

[EdEarl]

Some people are born with exceptional gifts, for example someone born with savant syndrome who can paint or play an instrument, some of whom cannot tie their shoes. Occasionally a person with many gifts is born, such as Leonardo da Vinci. Some have great difficulty learning anything, such as the special education students of my wife. But, most of us must study hard to learn whatever subjects we attend.

[iNow]

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere.

This could quite easily (likely?) be a false memory, though.

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/findex/g/false-memory-definition.htm

[imatfaal]

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere.

 

Anyone else feel that logic and philosophy are inborn abilities?

 

Socrates / Plato surely did not think they could not be taught if Socrates' many attempts to get people to start thinking philosophically and critically are anything to go by (although I am trying to remember if Philosopher Kings were born or made). Personally I disagree whole-heartedly with the OP - having spent time teaching critical legal theory I suppose I must believe it is possible to teach and further I found that very few people came pre-equipped with critical thinking skills (cynicism is not enough!).

 

Whilst it would be silly to deny nature - so many abilities, faculties, and aptitudes have to do with nurture and environment that to look for any strict delineation between instinctive skills and learnt skills is fruitless. There are so very few skills that cannot be taught and so many instances of natural talent that to try to place certain concepts in one camp rather than the other is a fool's errand and possibly very disruptive of society.

[cladking]

I agree somewhat with the contention. It seems most individuals who think about such things do think about the nature of thought and consciousness from a fairly young age but I doubt if this applies broadly. It might mean more that thinking about how we think leads to an interest in philosophy in same cases rather than that they are equivalents. There's also a tendency for such things to run in families so children get exposed to it at younger ages.

 

In other words I suspect a high correlation does exist but it might have relatively little to do with innate characteristics. People often get interested in things in later life or young adulthood that didn't previously appeal to them.

[turionx2]

This could quite easily (likely?) be a false memory, though.

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/findex/g/false-memory-definition.htm

 

You seem to assert that everything needs to be learnt.

 

Socrates / Plato surely did not think they could not be taught if Socrates' many attempts to get people to start thinking philosophically and critically are anything to go by (although I am trying to remember if Philosopher Kings were born or made). Personally I disagree whole-heartedly with the OP - having spent time teaching critical legal theory I suppose I must believe it is possible to teach and further I found that very few people came pre-equipped with critical thinking skills (cynicism is not enough!).

 

I dont see how cynicism has anything to do with critical thinking. To me, a person who lacks critical thinking can give the illusion of being a critical thinker by denying what they don't understand and display cynicism from their inability to critically think. -- Unfortunately there is plenty of block heads in society that have been brainwashed by society to believe that they can learn to become geniuses or leaders and later in life have a very hard time accepting their inferiority.

 

I was scolded in school by teachers for my critical thinking and I had to learn to shut up, memorize the illogical information and regurgitate it when test time came around because if I didn't, I was discriminated for my critical thinking by receiving a lower mark. Teachers disliked to be seen as incompetent.

 

Out of everyone you tried to teach critical thinking; what is the percentage of students that were able to learn how to critically think?

 

Whilst it would be silly to deny nature - so many abilities, faculties, and aptitudes have to do with nurture and environment that to look for any strict delineation between instinctive skills and learnt skills is fruitless.

 

You only say its fruitless because if a delineation is discovered, it would hurt the ego's of many people.

 

It is arrogant to believe that a person can be made a genius or a leader and very destructive to the minds of those who are born with these abilities.

 

There are so very few skills that cannot be taught and so many instances of natural talent that to try to place certain concepts in one camp rather than the other is a fool's errand and possibly very disruptive of society.

 

This made me laugh because this type of thinking is why the economy is in the toilet. You're so worried about not agitating the sheeps to the point where you don't see the damage that you are doing to everyone's psychology by pushing everyone to believe that they can all do anything.

[iNow]

You seem to assert that everything needs to be learnt.

Not at all. I would never make such an ignorant assertion. My point was that your recollection of "always being logical and being born that way" is almost certainly a false memory, one that you continue to reinforce merely because it aligns with your preconceptions and preferred narrative about your self-identity.

 

 

It is arrogant to believe that a person can be made a genius or a leader and very destructive to the minds of those who are born with these abilities.

You seem deeply confused about the interplay of nature and nurture, and appear to have no intention of correcting obvious errors in your thinking. I wish it were otherwise.

 

Also, the economy is not "in the toilet" because some people teach things to other people in an attempt to increase their abilities as critical thinkers, but that's a whole other thread.

Edited December 19, 2013 by iNow

[tar]

turionx2,

 

Another aspect to consider is who you are measuring yourself against, in terms of knowing instinctively what logic and philosphy were.

 

And who it was that you grew up around, in terms of their ability to use logic, and wonder about the world, and search for true things about it, and your mimicking of or deviation from their attitudes and examples.

 

Consider such a claim as yours being made by someone very dull, and with limited experience and knowledge and with only one or two "insights" under their belt. Would you be able to tell them they did not know what logic was, or what philosophy was?

 

If you had not learned what logic and philosophy were, how would you know you had them, and knew what they were already?

 

I have done some thinking about insights I have had, and it is difficult to imagine being me, "before" the insight, since once you have an insight, its part of you, and not really possible to "forget". It already makes sense and is quite obvious and true, and has worked its way into all your thinking. It is sort of like trying to imagine yourself and the world, "before" your child came into it. Especially if you are talking to them about it.

 

Your claim is sort of like saying you were born knowing how to walk, or ride a bike...as if everybody else was not born with the same potential abilities as you were.

 

Regards, TAR

Or saying you were born knowing how to spell C A T.

Edited December 20, 2013 by tar

[imatfaal]

...

I dont see how cynicism has anything to do with critical thinking. To me, a person who lacks critical thinking can give the illusion of being a critical thinker by denying what they don't understand and display cynicism from their inability to critically think. -- Unfortunately there is plenty of block heads in society that have been brainwashed by society to believe that they can learn to become geniuses or leaders and later in life have a very hard time accepting their inferiority.

 

It seems you are merely angry that the untermensch just will not learn to accept their place in life. The attitude which your argument is evincing is pretty much that which I have striven against most of my life.

 

I was scolded in school by teachers for my critical thinking and I had to learn to shut up, memorize the illogical information and regurgitate it when test time came around because if I didn't, I was discriminated for my critical thinking by receiving a lower mark. Teachers disliked to be seen as incompetent

Very few people like to be seen as incompetent - even teachers; I do wonder how much was your teachers' lack of insight and how much was the unbreachable confidence of youth. Critical thinking has its place - and too often it is neglected, but actually knowing things is very useful as well

 

You only say its fruitless because if a delineation is discovered, it would hurt the ego's of many people.

 

Was your English language teacher one of those who scolded you? You can seriously damage an apostrophe's self-esteem by moving it from its correct place indicating a missing letter in "it is" and leaving it in someone's ego. On a more substantive note; even a natural logician and born philosopher cannot easily step into another's mind and discern the intention behind a few lines of text. I really have no problem with damaging egos and pricking over-inflated self-esteem but I do not believe a strict delineation is possible on anything other than after the fact, on an individual level, and for exquisitely specified skills.

 

 

...This made me laugh because this type of thinking is why the economy is in the toilet. You're so worried about not agitating the sheeps to the point where you don't see the damage that you are doing to everyone's psychology by pushing everyone to believe that they can all do anything.

 

I think it is much more likely that the economy has been damaged by the blond beasts over-whelmed by their misplaced self-confidence and so certain in their ability to play and win the game that they neglected to learn basic economics, the benefits of fiscal prudence, and even the fundamentals of good business governance.

[John Cuthber]

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere.

 

Anyone else feel that logic and philosophy are inborn abilities?

Isn't the most likely explanation that you were taught about it, but forgot that the "lesson" had taken place?

[turionx2]

tar,

 

Another aspect to consider is who you are measuring yourself against, in terms of knowing instinctively what logic and philosphy were.

 

I am not measuring myself against anyone. I am wondering if anyone else had their own way of thinking from a young age and then discovered that their way of thinking lined up with logic and wisdom(philosophy). This would indicate an internal ability.

 

I would also add that my Italian report cards from grades 1 to 3 pretty much say the same thing.. autonomous, refuses to participate(because I didn't agree), defends his ground when debating, is always in his own internal world, etc.. I've been persecuted from a young age for refusing to be a sheep.

 

If you had not learned what logic and philosophy were, how would you know you had them, and knew what they were already?

A much bigger question would be.. how did those who wrote about logic and wisdom know about logic and wisdom when no one taught them?

Your claim is sort of like saying you were born knowing how to walk, or ride a bike...as if everybody else was not born with the same potential abilities as you were.

Maybe but it isn't the fault of those that are born with specific abilities. I'm sure that everyone has their own different abilities and should strive towards using those instead of reaching for empty dreams.

Logic and wisdom is a way of thinking though and not really like learning how to walk or ride a bike.

I would be curious to know how many people that have tried to learn to be logical have succeeded in learning and executing logic. Have any studies been done?

[cladking]

 

I would be curious to know how many people that have tried to learn to be logical have succeeded in learning and executing logic. Have any studies been done?

 

 

 

I think everyone is logical but most all of us adopt superstitions and these impede logical results. Most superstitions are a form of believing we know everything or reality can be determined with little evidence and intuition. People can believe in almost anything but they think logically in light of these beliefs.

 

A lot of the problem is language because terms are ill defined and language is the mode of thought. It is also communication by which we pick up many superstitions which are passed generation to generation through conditioning and learning. Much superstition is the extrapolation that we know everything because technology has made our lives so easy. People don't notice how slippery language is and some individuals even use poor language to develop ideas and behavior.

[tar]

Turionx,

 

Think about something, without using language to do it.

 

Even if we all are born with the abiltity to understand and express things in a "universal grammar", the specific words we use in most places in the U.S. are different than the words used in India...in fact India has many different local languages understood by the people of the province, but not by the people of a neighboring one.

 

Now consider that there are varied languages and symbol systems used in various formal logic systems.

Conventions all, language, logic, math and thought...yet you propose you were born with your own logic, and your own way of thinking.

 

I somehow doubt that is even possible...well wait...very possible, but not particularly useful. If it is not understood by those around you, it would be impossible for you to share the thing, or use the thing.

 

Before I learned to speak, or as I was learning to speak I would converse with my sister in what my father remembers as meaningless babble. My sister knew what I was saying though, I just had my own words for things. For instance, since I had a lot of trouble saying sh I simply bypassed the difficulty and called a shovel a yahde. (Even later on when I actually spoke English).

 

Point being I think we all know how to think, in our own internal "dream" language, and internalizing the sensible world and remebering it, and using analogies and pattern matching and so on is something that just comes with the territory of having a human brain. So perhaps we are all born philosophers and thinkers. The trick is to do it in such a way that it makes sense to everybody else, as well.

 

Here, while I myself argued with my 5th grade teacher, and later with my calculus professors...I lost the arguments...quite rightly.

 

As I think you should lose this one.

 

You can have a thought, or a word, that makes no sense to anybody else...but what is the use?

 

There is a difference between what you characterize as "being a sheep", and following a useful and workable and valuable convention.

 

Just remember, when you have an "original" thought, that chances are, someone else already had it before, and wrote it down and shared it, and most probably did it 600 years ago.

 

You are not the first "wise guy" to arise on this Earth.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 21, 2013 by tar

[John Cuthber]

Turionx,

Are you ignoring my point?

How can you be sure that you were not told about logic?

[tar]

P.S. Sorry for the wise crack.

 

I am just trying to illustrate that your initial question has an element of truth and agreement in it, and an element of an unuseful and self serving nature.

 

Its sort of similar to a question I have been asking myself over the last few months about intelligence and capability and one's view of themselves in reference to other's view of the same capability and intelligence. Like for instance I like to think I am a good singer. Maybe I am, maybe I am not. Perhaps I can hit the right notes that would please another's ear, or perhaps its not as pleasing as I think, or perhaps its pleasing, but nothing special, not anything that would knock off anybody's socks. Then again, there are probably people whose warbling is wasted on the shower's wall, and would please everybody. After all, there are a lot of people that can sing. Choruses however, tend to practice, and all sing notes in harmony with each other...like a bunch of sheep.

 

Would you propose that singing your own notes at the concert, would be somehow an improvement of the experience, for everybody involved? Perhaps in some rare case a certain unexpected harmony might be interesting, but on the whole, my guess would be that people in the audience and the others in the chior would wish the guy third from the left in the fourth row, had learned the song, and could sing his part on key.

If you truly feel you have a gift that would be of benefit to the world, go to the talent contest, which we call the university. There you will find others, with gifts, born to think logically and well, and originally and compare your thoughts with theirs. Learn what others have already figured out, concerning the subjects you muse on, and apply your talents to an area of human endeavor where advancements are needed. There you might find yourself outclassed, or just another run of the mill doctorate candidate. Or perhaps you can run a department, or cure cancer or establish world peace, or fly teams to Mars.

 

There are few in this world with a PhD. But those that have them, benefit the world, and lead us in the endeavors that we all appreciate and require.

 

If you think you were born for such a role...pursue it. You can not prove anything to the rest of us, just by saying you think you are something special.

Just for fun, consider Socrates. Born with the gifts you feel you were born with, who was sentenced to drink poison by his society. Perhaps he did not apply his gifts in exactly the best manner he could have.

Perhaps he did it, exactly right.

Edited December 21, 2013 by tar

[hypervalent_iodine]

Turionx,

Are you ignoring my point?

How can you be sure that you were not told about logic?

He's been banned, so he'll be ignoring it indefinitely. On a related note, since the OP is no longer with us, this may as well be closed.

 

Edit: I am re opening this upon request.

[Gees]

Hello Members;

 

I asked that this thread be reopened because I find it interesting and can relate to the OP. Of course, I won't be able to talk to Turionx2 because that Member has been banned, but it should be noted that others do share the opinion that the art of thinking that we call philosophy can be, and maybe is, innate.

 

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere.

 

Anyone else feel that logic and philosophy are inborn abilities?

 

My first memory of making a reasoned and logical argument was when I was eight years old. Although I no doubt made other arguments, this one stands out in my mind because it was horribly embarrassing. It was with a teacher, and of course I lost the argument because I had no authority -- not because I was wrong. It was a life changing event that taught me a very bad lesson, that teachers could be quite stupid. Not something that we generally want an eight year old to learn.

 

Some people are born with exceptional gifts, for example someone born with savant syndrome who can paint or play an instrument, some of whom cannot tie their shoes. Occasionally a person with many gifts is born, such as Leonardo da Vinci. Some have great difficulty learning anything, such as the special education students of my wife. But, most of us must study hard to learn whatever subjects we attend.

 

EdEarl;

 

Although I agree with most of your post, I would caution you with regard to the words "exceptional gifts". Being born with the ability to think like a philosopher, does not necessarily translate to being born to think like an "exceptional" philosopher. We all have different talents and innate abilities, but they are also at different levels, so I don't think that this is what the OP implied.

 

This could quite easily (likely?) be a false memory, though.

http://psychology.about.com/od/findex/g/false-memory-definition.htm

 

INow;

 

This looks like nonsense. Why would Turionx2's memories be more "likely" to be false memories? Are you trying to imply that all memories are false? Or do you have some other reason that you have not stated?

 

 

Socrates / Plato surely did not think they could not be taught if Socrates' many attempts to get people to start thinking philosophically and critically are anything to go by (although I am trying to remember if Philosopher Kings were born or made). Personally I disagree whole-heartedly with the OP - having spent time teaching critical legal theory I suppose I must believe it is possible to teach and further I found that very few people came pre-equipped with critical thinking skills (cynicism is not enough!).

 

Imatfaal;

 

Please note that "critical legal theory" and philosophy are not the same thing. I would also like to suggest that your statement "very few people came pre-equipped with critical thinking skills" is somewhat supportive of the idea that philosophical thinking might just be innate.

 

Isn't the most likely explanation that you were taught about it, but forgot that the "lesson" had taken place?

 

John Cuthber;

 

We are all taught about logic in the second grade when we study math, so by your suggestion, everyone should be logical. They are not.

 

G

[iNow]

INow;

 

This looks like nonsense. Why would Turionx2's memories be more "likely" to be false memories? Are you trying to imply that all memories are false?

No, and I've already clarified this in this very thread. See post #7.

[EdEarl]

EdEarl;

 

Although I agree with most of your post, I would caution you with regard to the words "exceptional gifts". Being born with the ability to think like a philosopher, does not necessarily translate to being born to think like an "exceptional" philosopher. We all have different talents and innate abilities, but they are also at different levels, so I don't think that this is what the OP implied.

 

G

I agree that all of us are different.

 

Though, not specifically stated, I did not intend to imply that people are born with knowledge. When we are newborn we can swallow food, breathe, feel, etc., and very little else. We slowly develop our physical and mental skills, both simple such as touching our nose and complex such as philosophical knowledge. The gifts we are born with are abilities to do and learn. People learn from direct experience and are taught by others. People who learn from direct experience, often figure things out without being taught.

[Gees]

No, and I've already clarified this in this very thread. See post #7.

 

Nonsense. In post # 7 (below), what you did was iterate and expound upon your asserted opinions from your first post in this thread. You clarified nothing with regard to connecting Turienx2's memories and your opinion that these memories are likely false.

 

In order to clarify, you would have to provide a reasonable logic or evidence that supports your assertion. The reasoned "preconceptions" regarding Turienx2's "self-identify" are nonsense as you have no ability to know Turienx2's subjective mind. I will grant that it is possible to extract reams of information from a few sentences -- I do it myself -- but even I can not extract enough information from the few sentences in the OP to tell whether or not that subjective mind holds valid or invalid memories.

 

Ideas come from somewhere, so if you can not come up with some reasoned explanation, then I will just have to assume that you are projecting your own thoughts on Turienx2. Which would imply that you are the person who continues "to reinforce merely because it aligns with your preconceptions and preferred narrative".

 

Not at all. I would never make such an ignorant assertion. My point was that your recollection of "always being logical and being born that way" is almost certainly a false memory, one that you continue to reinforce merely because it aligns with your preconceptions and preferred narrative about your self-identity.

 

G

[Dekan]

The above posts show that "Philosophy" always ends up by making people want to kick each other. Just like "Religion" and "Politics"

 

Why are these subjects even on a Science Forum. Is it to liven things up?

[cladking]

 

 

My first memory of making a reasoned and logical argument was when I was eight years old. Although I no doubt made other arguments, this one stands out in my mind because it was horribly embarrassing. It was with a teacher, and of course I lost the argument because I had no authority -- not because I was wrong. It was a life changing event that taught me a very bad lesson, that teachers could be quite stupid. Not something that we generally want an eight year old to learn.

 

 

I think this is exactly the sort of thing children should be learning. I believe most children who are really paying attention will have many experiences like this. If they think for themselves as many philosophical types do and they don't accept any arguments based merely on the fact that it's made by an authority or is in a book then it's a certainty they will have such experiences.

 

Children need to be taught metaphysics and they need perspective. Much of what we simply take for granted is mere opinion and perspective. They need to learn that the human race is climbing higher on the shoulders of previous generations and that any individual can always be wrong and usually is. It's not intelligence that has gotten us where we are and it is most assuredly not authority. Progress has a tendency to be a sort of refutation of authoritative arguments. Books have a way of being quaint after half a century and obsolete in another century.

 

Perhaps nearly anyone can become a philosopher but most must do it by a young age and most probably have at least some predisposition to it.

 

I don't know how I old I was when I became a philosoper but I was ten when I knew it. I had had a dream that I was sitting still in a tree for so long the animals forgot I was there. A couple birds on a nearby fence started a conversation about whether or not they should let people know that animals can talk. They decided against it. I think it was because they considered human reactions too unpredictable.

[iNow]

In post # 7 (below), what you did was iterate and expound upon your asserted opinions from your first post in this thread.

Do explain then for all of us how either my original comment or my clarification leads you to think that I was "trying to imply that all memories are false?"

 

...because this is what I said:

This could quite easily (likely?) be a false memory.

 

...and then again later:

My point was that your recollection of "always being logical and being born that way" is almost certainly a false memory, one that you continue to reinforce merely because it aligns with your preconceptions and preferred narrative about your self-identity.

 

So, help me out here. What in either of those sentences may have lead Turien to believe that I "seem to assert that everything needs to be learnt." Likewise, what in either of those sentences led you to ask me, "Are you trying to imply that all memories are false?"

 

It seems nonsequitur. I put forth that Turien's recollection of "always being logical and being born that way" is probably just a false memory or invented narrative that aligns with his self-identity.

 

Neither of those possibilities has anything to do with me thinking that "all memories are false" or that "everything needs to be learnt."

[Gees]

Hello EdEarl;

 

Nice to talk to you again.

 

I agree that all of us are different.

Though, not specifically stated, I did not intend to imply that people are born with knowledge.

 

But we are. I know that this issue is hotly debated, but it is difficult for me to see it any other way. How could we possibly understand that 1 + 1 = 2, if we did not first know and understand the concept of more and less? This is something that the Ancients debated, and it is clear that ideas are built upon ideas, knowledge upon knowledge, so there has to be some base for knowledge to build upon. The concept of more and less, or greater and lesser, has to be innate, and this is not limited to humans.

 

Consider a small fish in a tank; if you drop something very small into the tank, the fish will dart to it to see if it is edible, but if you drop something larger than the fish into the tank, the fish will dart away to protect itself. This implies that even a fish can possess knowledge of greater and lesser.

 

A lot of people may say that this is just an example of instinct, but what is instinct? Instinct is just a knowledge of something that is good or bad for that life form, and that life form's reaction to that knowledge. So instinct, in order to be effective, requires some knowledge. No one is debating whether or not instinct is innate, so that means that the knowledge is also innate.

 

Most of the debate around the nature v nurture concept is derived from people like Descartes, who stated that "God" was the source of innate knowledge. So the debate is really a religion v science issue, which is not relevant to the truth of the matter.

 

You can learn more about it in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_idea

 

When we are newborn we can swallow food, breathe, feel, etc., and very little else.

 

 

We are also very attracted to faces. It does not matter if it is a real face, a stuffed animal face, or a "happy face" drawn on paper, as they all will draw a baby's attention. This is considered to be an instinctive reaction that many social animals share, but it also denotes a certain knowledge of a face.

 

We slowly develop our physical and mental skills, both simple such as touching our nose and complex such as philosophical knowledge. The gifts we are born with are abilities to do and learn. People learn from direct experience and are taught by others. People who learn from direct experience, often figure things out without being taught.

 

I agree with you here, but this is also where it gets interesting. Why is it that different people, who are exposed to the same information, will pick up different knowledge? My Mother loved wisdom and often quoted the old adages (wisdoms) to us, but I am the only philosopher in my family. Why? One might think that her love of wisdom would have made all of us philosophers, but it did not. My eldest sibling is a strategist and sculptor, the next is a very social traditionalist and artist, another is an engineer and mechanic that can write poetry and play musical instruments. I am the philosopher, teacher, and writer. We are all very different.

 

Even identical twins raised in the same household seem to be very different in their interests and personalities. It is probably this very difference that is often noted between twins that started the superstition that twins were each half of one soul. So there is more than just exposure to experience and teaching that causes us to be different.

 

Here is a story that might explain what I mean. Years ago, I was with my grandchildren, and my grand-daughter was doing homework. She had to write a short story and then draw a picture of it. Her story was about little animals that lived by a waterfall, but she was having trouble drawing a water fall and asked for my help. So I tried to draw a water fall, first from the front view (which looked like an ugly curtain) then from a side view (which was worse, believe it or not). I could not figure out how to draw it, so I asked her big brother to help as he is the family artist. He was about nine years old at the time. He thought about it, then drew a beautiful picture of a water fall in less than two minutes. I asked him if he had drawn a water fall before, and he said, "No. But it is not that hard."

 

Later that night, I studied his picture in order to discern what he had seemed to instinctively know, that I did not know. What I learned was that he did not draw the water. He drew the container. He drew the cliff that the water fell from and the pool that surrounded the water after it landed, he did not actually draw the water. After considering this for a while, I realized that if I wanted to draw a cup of water, I would make it a glass that can be seen through, and then draw a line that indicates the water's level. I would not draw the water. I am not even sure if a person can draw water. We can paint water, or draw a container for it, and we can draw the motion of water like waves, but can we actually draw water? And how did a nine year old boy know this?

 

Would this be an example of a natural-born artist? If I spent years in art school, would I become an artist? Somehow, I don't think so. I would definitely improve my skills, but I would only be able to understand what I was taught and would lack that certain something that makes one an artist. There are natural-born leaders, natural-born teachers, artists, musicians, managers, and healers. Is there some rule that says there can not be natural-born philosophers? I have met many people in philosophy forums that know more about philosophy than I will ever learn, but like my Mother, they are not philosophers. They are people who love philosophy, and I refer to them as students of philosophy, but they are not philosophers.

 

G

 

[Gees]

Hello Dekan;

 

The above posts show that "Philosophy" always ends up by making people want to kick each other. Just like "Religion" and "Politics"

Why are these subjects even on a Science Forum. Is it to liven things up?

 

To answer your question first, the reason that these other subjects are in a Science forum is because science is a branch of philosophy. Religion is also a branch of philosophy. Since all forms of government are based on either a religious belief or a philosophical idea, politics becomes part of this study.

 

As to your first comment, please note that philosophy is a study of the unknown, which means that everyone can have an opinion. Unfortunately many people have decided that attack and debate is a good way to find the truth of an unknown. I do not agree. But if you review this thread again, I think that you will find that very few people actually answered the question posed in the OP. Most people decided to attack the validity of even asking the question, and at least on person went completely off topic by asking why a philosophy forum was situated in a science site.

 

So it is my thought that a serious lack of respect for philosophy, philosophical discussion, and the original poster, is the cause of people wanting to "kick each other".

 

G