Philosophers are born, not made ?

[tar]

Gees,

 

Not quite sure how you are using the term instinct. Normally I think of the term instinct as referring to a species wide, complex behaviour. Like nest building. Other inate type behavior like suckling a breast, is more of a reflexive behaviour. When it comes to philosophy, which is very complex behaviour, I am thinking instinct does not apply. If it was instinctual, then it would be species wide, and not something one individual in the species would have, that others of the species did not.

 

In this light, being a born philosopher does not make any sense. It would rather indicate to me, that there is a certain requirement, that others of the human race give certain individuals, or allow certian individuals to fulfill certain roles, and exhibit certain attributes and procivities that the talents and abilities of those individuals make workable. Much as the fastest and strongest wolf might become the leader of the pack, or the big strong guy with the quickest reflexes and the best hand eye coordination might become the star batter on the team.

 

To be born a philosopher would then become more a distinction placed upon an individual by their peers, or family, and the greater society around them, based upon other's determination or recognition of skills and abilities, rather than a determination that a particular person could make concerning themselves.

 

In the case of philosophy, like most other human endeavors, as was already noted, one thinker builds upon the thinking of previous thinkers. This in my opinion, while leaving open the possibility of original thinking, requires other people's thinking, both to set the framework, and to make the judgement that a philosopher...is one.

 

Regards, TAR2

Could someone be considered a born computer programmer? Seems unlikely to mean anything without computers to program, and is not currently a profession that is pursued without the use of libraries of code already elegant and efficient, and writen and perfected by others. Philosophers I think therefore are not born, but made.

 

Nature-nurture, is not an either or, consideration. The two are rather quite interdependent.

When I was young, playing with a string, I put a loop in a loop and made a long braid. My Mom said I just invented crocheting...well I sort of did, but I certainly was not the first to do so.

 

The OP was not the first to think.

[cladking]

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".

 

 

 

 

I believe the problem is language and the universal unwillingness to share definitions for words. It actually goes even more deeply than this since our words also have nuance and character and these can be misunderstood as well. We make statements that are obviously true but each listener has his own understanding (or lack thereof) so may not see the veracity or even see that it is false.

 

Word definitions are "sloppy" to enable the widest expression of thought but then backfires by being too ambiguous in meaning. Some people take this misunderstanding personally because like religion, logic and reasoning can be at the basis of their beliefs.

 

The only possible "fix" is a vocabulary founded on metaphysics but this is highly improbable since the UN can't even agree on a standard time or on what day midnight falls. We're each our own little nation and there are no interpreters.

[Gees]

Cladking;

Hi. I apologize for taking so long to respond to your posts, but MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has been kicking my butt lately. Not yet sure if this is a "relapsing, remitting" thing, or if it is a permanent reduction of my strengths and abilities, but you will have to be patient with me. I will know which it is by Spring. Please note that I always read your responses to me, and I am thinking about them. My responses may be slower, but I hope to at least make them in the same year as yours in the future. (chuckle)

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.

 

While I agree with the large majority of what you are stating here, I don't think that children should learn that their teachers can be quite stupid. This information did not serve me well. What I had learned was that I could not trust my teachers, and it took a few really good teachers and many years before I finally acquired the experience, knowledge, and judgement to know where to place my trust. Chidren need to be able to trust the people, who are teaching them.

I believe that the problem comes from the way we view children. With all of this nature v nurture nonsense, we have come to think of children as empty little boxes that need to be filled up. We need to put the ideas into their heads that we value, so this is what our education system tries to do. I watched a video on education in this country, and it likened education to manufacturing, and explained that what we are doing is very much like "processing" children to turn them into good little citizens.

The problem with this "processing" is that it is not flexible enough to accommodate natural talents and abilities. And if we are going to be honest, we must admit that thinking is disruptive to a process. When people think, they get ideas, and then questions regarding those ideas, which they expect the teacher to answer. Teachers, on the other hand, are trying to put ideas into those little heads, rather than listening to what comes out of those little heads. I have no doubt in my mind, that if the argument that I made at eight years old, was instead made by an adult, the teacher would have listened. Children are people too, just very small people.

Children need to be taught metaphysics and they need perspective. Much of what we simply take for granted is mere opinion and perspective.

 

Children need to be allowed to think and encouraged to learn the differences between truth, fact, opinion, and perspective.

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.

 

Agreed.

Cladking, I need your help. A while back, I recognized you as being another philosopher and have been thinking about that. What is it that I think I recognize? I am not sure. I have been to many forums and find that I will read a post and think, that person is a philosopher; then read another post and think, that person never was and never will be a philosopher. What is it that I am seeing? There seems to be no pattern regarding intelligence, education, the ability to articulate their ideas, or even whether or not I agree with their ideas. Some are bright, others not very bright; some educated, others in need of learning; some articulate, others that I really want to help them explain their ideas. So what is the common thread, or threads, that says this person is a philosopher. Do you have any thoughts on this?

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.

 

I think I was seven when I knew. I was sitting on the floor at my Mother's feet while she told stories of King Solomon. If I had been younger than four, I would have been in her lap (and would probably not have remembered), and if I had been as old as nine, the conversation would have taken place at the table -- so seven is about right. She told the stories about the babe that was ordered to be cut in half, and the two young men, who could not divide the property that they had inherited. When she was done, I stated, "That is what I want to be; wise like King Solomon." (Haven't got there yet.)

My siblings also heard the stories, but they were not enthralled by them. I was. To my mind, a man who could pull truth out of lies, was more fascinating than a magician. This man could find truth, expose it, and everyone hearing the story would have no doubt that it was truth. This was a man to be admired, and I wanted to learn how to find truth -- because I was already in love with it. Philosophy is love of wisdom -- love of truth.

G

[cladking]

My responses may be slower, but I hope to at least make them in the same year as yours in the future. (chuckle)

 

 

 

Don't worry about it in the least. Post if and when it suits. Just make sure you're doing as well as possible.

 

While I agree with the large majority of what you are stating here, I don't think that children should learn that their teachers can be quite stupid.

 

 

I suppose you may be right. I'm of the opinion that in most practical ways that humans aren't really "intelligent". Or perhaps more accurately we wholly misunderstand the nature of intelligence and greatly overestimate our own and each others' ability to think . I doubt even the tools we use to understand reality are really up to the task so "intelligence" is largely irrelevant anyway. We mistake our awe of nature and our technology as indication of consciousness and intelligence but I doubt either is dramatically different than most other animals. Consciousness, as I'm sure you agree, is nearly universal and intelligence is a misinterpretation of the nature of experimental science to generate technology.

 

While my opinion is that we'd all be better off if we knew this, this is still only opinion. Perhaps people need to believe in things.

 

Children are people too, just very small people.

 

 

Children and infants sometimes see things more clearly than adults.

 

Experts are sometimes more likely to be wrong than people with no training and little knowledge. It depends on the subject but "childish" opinions tend to usually be marginalized or ignored.

A while back, I recognized you as being another philosopher and have been thinking about that. What is it that I think I recognize? I am not sure. I have been to many forums and find that I will read a post and think, that person is a philosopher; then read another post and think, that person never was and never will be a philosopher. What is it that I am seeing?

 

 

Actually I could speak at great lenght about it but it shouldn't be necessary. This is something I notice because for various reasons I had to teach myself to read minds as a younster. It's not only peoples' phraseology that alerts you to their thoughtprocesses but the subjects on which they speak. Of course on a message board most people are going to be speaking of science and philosophy but it goes deeper than this. It's been said that shallow people talk about other people, most speak about things, events, and places, but then there are some who like to talk about ideas. People who speak almost solely about ideas are almost always very philosophical in nature.

 

Perhaps I should avoid talking about people at this point but I don't give as many clues about myself as most people do. This isn't so much to safegaurd my privacy but rather because it's habit. You may just be picking up on this near total lack of verbal and communication clues. The specific words people choose and the manner they are organized gives a lot of information about a person to those who are adept at picking up on them. It will tell you about a person's upbringing and education. There are even details that can be deduced (provisionally).

 

 

 

I think I was seven when I knew.

 

I don't think I really started out with a philosophical bent as that I was interested in "thought" from a very young age. Most things of any importance or interest to me I could take apart and see how they worked. I had access to great answers for almost any scientific question but no answers at all about thought and what it was. I think my interests in the broader philosophical questions all sprang from this. Then in recent years I've stumbled on a whole different way to view everything and this has affected my perspectives as well.

 

Being a philosopher can be done by anyone probably. All that's required is to think about the questions best addressed philosophically. It seems most people do start young and they tend to be around like-minded people.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

But still, born not made is in question. The suggestion that philosophers tend to be around people of like mind, might argue in the direction that it takes one to know one.

 

One thing I noticed about myself about 35 years ago, is that I was more of a thinker, than a doer. And in recent years have agreed with others that I am rather an overthinker, at that.

 

Some, that you call "shallow" that talk about other people, might also be the ones that bring the sandwiches to the meeting, arrange the chairs, and make sure the electric bill has been paid.

 

While I, being a thinker, might consider many reasons why doing a thing might be ill advised, or have unintended, but predictable consequences, another might just do the thing, and handle the problems as they arise. Shallow should not be confused with simple and direct, and to many, behaviour is more important and consequencial than intent.

 

This is an admonition to myself, as well as a suggestion to "philosophers", that ideas are fine, but the true test of an idea, is to make it work, to try it out, amongst the waking world, to dash it against the minds of others, and onto the fabric of the world, and see if it flies and fits with actuality. Such is science, such is technology, but in addition, such is art and poetry, music and dance, law and order.

 

While ideas may work in ones head. Insights that are so powerful that they make one laugh aloud or sob with joy and power, they mean only a little, to the rest of the world. Only a very little, until you do something with the idea that affects the rest of the world, or at least some part of the world on the other side of your fingertips and vocal chords.

 

Regards, TAR2

To the rest of the world you are just somebody, but to somebody you might be the whole world.

 

Think about it? Or do something about it?

 

Or both?

The OP suggested that he knew logic and truth right out of the womb, or at a very early age. I am thinking this was not the case, and as iNow suggested, more likely a false memory. Something cobbled together, later on, as one rationalizes ones internal "togetherness" as being superior to the "togetherness" of others, or the "outside" general "togetherness".

In general though, ones thoughts, no matter how internally fitting they might be, can not be superior in their "fit", to the external world which sets the standards of what fits with what.

[Gees]

Tar;

 

I owe Cladking a post, but needed to address some of the ideas in your post first, as I suspect that you are not clear on what a philosopher actually is.

 

The suggestion that philosophers tend to be around people of like mind, might argue in the direction that it takes one to know one.

 

It may well "take one to know one", which would be why I would never mistake you for a philosopher like me. But there is more than one kind of philosophy and more than one kind of philosopher. All philosophers seek truth, but truth relative to what? This is where the difference comes in, in the "what".

 

One thing I noticed about myself about 35 years ago, is that I was more of a thinker, than a doer. And in recent years have agreed with others that I am rather an overthinker, at that.

 

I have read in this forum a post that stated that philosophy is the "art of thinking". So that would make a sucessful bank robber a philosopher, as it takes a lot of thinking to be good at that. So crooks and con-men, politicians and lawyers are all philosophers? Do we really want to limit the definition of philosophy to thinking? What about truth and wisdom?

 

This is an admonition to myself, as well as a suggestion to "philosophers", that ideas are fine, but the true test of an idea, is to make it work, to try it out, amongst the waking world, to dash it against the minds of others, and onto the fabric of the world, and see if it flies and fits with actuality. Such is science, such is technology, but in addition, such is art and poetry, music and dance, law and order.

 

The above paragraph is the kind of nonsense that comes with equating philosophy with thinking. All thought is not philosophy; all ideas are not philosophy; and whether or not something "works" has absolutely nothing to do with truth. I could use a wig to dust my furniture, and it would work, but it would still be a wig -- not a dust rag.

 

Science is a branch of philosophy, so it studies the truth of things; what they are in and of themselves. Technology is a product of science. Art, poetry, music, and dance are expressions of emotion. Law and order are social constructs built on moral ideas mostly from religion. You can philosophize about anything that you want, but that does not make everything philosophy.

 

While ideas may work in ones head. Insights that are so powerful that they make one laugh aloud or sob with joy and power, they mean only a little, to the rest of the world. Only a very little, until you do something with the idea that affects the rest of the world, or at least some part of the world on the other side of your fingertips and vocal chords.

 

This paragraph exemplifies our biggest differences. You seem to think that philosophy only has value if you can see some way that it contributes to your world. I don't agree. In all of our discussions you have related the subject matter to you, your family, your culture, your society, your country, your world. You see all of it through a human perspective. To my mind, this human perspective can corrupt the truth of the thing in itself, so I do not see it as philosophy.

 

Science studies things, and works hard to limit our perspective of those things so as not to corrupt the studies. Religion studies things in relation to humans, and even goes so far as to anthropomorphize God in order to keep with this human perspective. Your philosophy seems more aligned with religious philosophy than with scientific philosophy or straight philosophy. Philosophy studies what something is, the truth of it, in and of itself -- no matter the value.

 

The OP suggested that he knew logic and truth right out of the womb, or at a very early age. I am thinking this was not the case, and as iNow suggested, more likely a false memory.

 

Since you are now quoting iNow, I can see that I will have to address iNow's last post to me.

 

Something cobbled together, later on, as one rationalizes ones internal "togetherness" as being superior to the "togetherness" of others, or the "outside" general "togetherness".

Where did you get the idiotic idea that philosophers were, or thought they were "superior"?

In general though, ones thoughts, no matter how internally fitting they might be, can not be superior in their "fit", to the external world which sets the standards of what fits with what.

 

 

Truth is not required to "fit". It is only required to be or not to be.

 

G

[cladking]

 

 

But still, born not made is in question. The suggestion that philosophers tend to be around people of like mind, might argue in the direction that it takes one to know one.

The OP suggested that he knew logic and truth right out of the womb, or at a very early age. I am thinking this was not the case, and as iNow suggested, more likely a false memory. Something cobbled together, later on, as one rationalizes ones internal "togetherness" as being superior to the "togetherness" of others, or the "outside" general "togetherness".

 

 

 

I don't respond to lots of posts because there is no common ground to reach some sort of agreement or even communication. Language meaning is determined by the listener rather than the author so when there is no common ground there is no communication. People can only hear what they want to hear and what they expect so responding under those circumstances will rarely result in communication. One must determine peoples' premises and definitions when there is no common ground and this is not only tedious but usually one-sided so there will still be limited communication. Your other points deserve to be addressed and I intend to address them later.

 

I believe all animals are born with a natural language. Babies have very poor command of this language and it is no longer reinforced and taught by adults. This language has a sort of internal logic and it's the way babies think. It's highly improbable any individual can remember it because it is drilled out by future learning. Some people have very very early memories from before their ability to speak but to my knowledge these memories are invariably smells and sensations or events rather than ideas or memories of situations. No one can remember something outside of his experience, we even have a lot of trouble experiencing things that are completely new and confusion tends to arise. Most of us do have false memories and even our real memories tend to become almost indistinguishable from memories of memories. I'm not confident memories are so much reinforced by coming to the fore as they are recopied though both factors appear to be at work. Can someone actually remember the primal language? I wouldn't rule it out but I'd want to see some of the words and rules. No doubt we all know one word in baby think; mom. Or as my niece says; memmy.

 

But we'll learn her real good.

 

People tend to associate with like minded people. I wouldn't say that those who talk mostly about people are shallow but there is certainly some correlation. Some people may study other people and their reactions. They might know far more about a wider array of things than almost anyone. It's a boring subject to me personally most of the time. To each his own.

 

 

 

While I, being a thinker, might consider many reasons why doing a thing might be ill advised, or have unintended, but predictable consequences, another might just do the thing, and handle the problems as they arise. Shallow should not be confused with simple and direct, and to many, behaviour is more important and consequencial than intent.

 

This is an admonition to myself, as well as a suggestion to "philosophers", that ideas are fine, but the true test of an idea, is to make it work, to try it out, amongst the waking world, to dash it against the minds of others, and onto the fabric of the world, and see if it flies and fits with actuality. Such is science, such is technology, but in addition, such is art and poetry, music and dance, law and order.

 

While ideas may work in ones head. Insights that are so powerful that they make one laugh aloud or sob with joy and power, they mean only a little, to the rest of the world. Only a very little, until you do something with the idea that affects the rest of the world, or at least some part of the world on the other side of your fingertips and vocal chords.

 

In general though, ones thoughts, no matter how internally fitting they might be, can not be superior in their "fit", to the external world which sets the standards of what fits with what.

 

 

Societal standards and beliefs are irrelevant to truth. Indeed, they are more likely to stand in the way to discovering truth because they are like blinders on a horse. When a sabre toothed tiger is prowling around the cave it's the individual who has to know how to protect himself. predators don't eat men, they eat an individual. This doesn't mean it's acceptable to toss a baby out to get it to leave but each person has to have a knowledge of ways to protect himself. Societal standards won't save him when he's in the tiger's claws and they'll do almost nothing to keep him out. Everyone's best protection has always been to think for himself. People must be responsible for the outcome of their decisions and outcomes because most of us are not inclined to look beyond the tips of our nose.

 

Of course these ideas seem strange now days in an era that food is adulterated for profit and no one is responsible. It's an era that has simply repudiated all responsibility while malfeasance and driving enterprise to bankruptcy garners bonuses rather than punishment.

 

If your ideas work out and the side effects are no worse than the disease then it was a success.

[Marshalscienceguy]

Yes I think they are born. people are born with a certain nature to them. Some people are more logical than others and some are more touchy feely. Philosophers are not often understood by normal people since normal people do not have the correct mind set to understand them. We have had people like this in all generations. In the past we have had people who thought outside the box and tried to figure out the ways of the world. Though most of society does not care. Most people take what you give them at face value. They will not examine or study things any further.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[tar]

Gees,

 

Well a great Philosopher by the name of Kant, thought that one could not know the thing as it is. One could make a great deal of judgments about a thing, and say a great deal about a thing, but this was not knowing the thing as it is.

 

You say that pure philosophy is a love of wisdom and truth, and the search for or the attainment of such.

 

I agree, but don't think this is a quest that you are on, that I am not. You figure that you are a philosopher of the only correct kind, because everything appears to be true that you believe, and because I disagree with your take, I can't be a philosopher. Well I am often considered a deep thinker, prone to talk about ideas, and prone to think outside the box. By some measures this would make me a philosopher. Whether I am any good at being a philosopher would be a matter of opinion, and up to the judgement of others. In this regard, the title of Philosopher would have to be one given by others, rather than one self appointed. And in this regard, the idea that one could be born a philosopher would be dashed, by the mere fact that it takes an objective judge to determine whether one is one or not.

 

So, you believe in reincarnation. You believe in consciousness as a substance. And you believe that you know a truth that can not be known by a human, but must be known by NOT thinking like a human. I think you are thrice wrong.

 

How your beliefs make you a philosopher, and my disagreement makes me not one, is to me, a sure sign that philosophers are NOT born, but made, in the eyes of a preponderance of external judges.

 

Regards, TAR2

Cladking,

 

Common ground is what philosophy and science is all about. If you cannot find the grounds upon which to converse with others, because your way of thinking is of a better kind than anyone else possesses, then I would guess you might be incorrect. Either others stand on the same ground, and you are unaware, or you have no ground to stand on.

 

Regards, TAR

As to truth, I would guess that there are two types. Common truth, which is true to you and to me, and to any and all third parties, which we can call objective truth, and then subjective truth, which is true to you in the face of general disagreement.

[Gees]

Do explain then for all of us

 

If I must. But please note that I can find no way to diplomatically state the truth as I see it.

 

Regarding the above quote; all of whom? Are you using the Royal "us", or do you have other people posting with you? Since I doubt that you are royalty and there is no "et al" after your name, I suppose that you are talking about other members.

 

So this is an argument by association? It is true because people think so? Who are these people and what do they think?

 

how either my original comment or my clarification leads you to think that I was "trying to imply that all memories are false?"

We have been through this before, but I will explain again. When a person writes a sentence and puts a little question mark after it -- like this (?) -- then it is a query for information; it is not a statement. At no time did I state or think that you were implying that all memories are false. Either you are confused again, or this is another manipulation, or a flat-out lie.

 

...because this is what I said:

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

Yes. That is what you stated, but that is OPINION. In order for it to be philosophy, you would have to give a reason why Turionx2's memories are "likely?" false memories. Memories can be false; memories can be true; but if your opinion is that Turionx2's memories are false, then you have to have a reason for that opinion -- something that connects the two ideas. Otherwise it is simply innuendo, which means nothing.

 

...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.

Here we have more OPINION, which is apparently based on your opinion as no valid reasons are stated. Your opinion may mean a great deal to you, but so far, I am not impressed with it. You have not yet made a logical or philosophical argument.

 

So, help me out here. What in either of those sentences may have lead Turien [Turionx2] to believe that I "seem to assert that everything needs to be learnt."

You are apparently confused again. I have no idea of what is in Turionx2's mind or what s/he may or may not believe regarding the above. What? Do you think I'm psychic? (chuckle chuckle)

 

Likewise, what in either of those sentences led you to ask me, "Are you trying to imply that all memories are false?"

You cut the quote into one third which misrepresents my query. Was this misrepresentation intentional? I studied law, and law has some very exacting rules regarding intent. It is difficult to believe that your mouse "accidentally" selected and clicked on the part of my post that would allow you to misdirect my meaning. So yes, you did it intentionally, and I have no doubt that you "cherry picked" my sentences. You are arguing about a supposed intent of mine that does not exist in order to avoid the real questions regarding your inability to connect Turionx2's memories with the link you provided.

 

My post read; "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?" Most people would understand that I was trying to find the reasoning that connects your link and Turionx2's memories. The link stated that memories can be false, but it did not state that Turionx2's memories were false, so what was your reasoning?

 

The only thing that you have stated thus far is that the memories were false in order to support a self-identify. Since we ALL have a self-identity, logically that means that all of our memories are "likely?" false. THIS IS NONSENSE.

 

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.

And here we have more OPINION backed up with OPINION based on "probably". Has it occurred to you yet that you "probably" need to learn the difference between opinion and reasoning or opinion and evidence?

 

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

Nothing that you have stated is even close to philosophy. Philosophy deals in logic, reasoning, evidence, observation, and experience.

 

What I have seen in your posts in this thread are association, opinion, innuendo, misrepresentation, manipulation, and possibly lies. I could not call this philosophy and would have to consider that an opinion and conclusion based on association, opinion, innuendo, misrepresentation, manipulation, and possibly lies, would be called gossip.

 

Gossip is not philosophy.

 

If you would like to learn how to make a philosophical argument, you can Google, "How to Argue Philosophically", and you will find that there are many free sites available.

 

The following is a quick study type of paper from NYU that can be reviewed in short order.

 

 

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html

 

This is a more in depth paper from the on-line Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy written by a representative of Michigan State University.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

 

Please review at least one of these before responding to this post, and try to get back on topic.

 

G

Edited January 14, 2014 by Gees

[tar]

Gees,

 

If one needs to read two papers on how to argue philosophically, I would think this would argue strongly in favor of having to learn such, rather than be born being able to do such.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

I can find no way to diplomatically state the truth as I see it <...> I will explain again. When a person writes a sentence and puts a little question mark after it -- like this (?) -- then it is a query for information <...> Either you are confused again, or this is another manipulation, or a flat-out lie. <...> Your opinion may mean a great deal to you, but so far, I am not impressed with it. <...> You are apparently confused again. <...> What? Do you think I'm psychic? (chuckle chuckle) <...> You are arguing about a supposed intent of mine that does not exist in order to avoid the real questions regarding your inability to connect Turionx2's memories with the link you provided. <...> THIS IS NONSENSE. <...> Has it occurred to you yet that you "probably" need to learn the difference between opinion and reasoning or opinion and evidence? <...> What I have seen in your posts in this thread are association, opinion, innuendo, misrepresentation, manipulation, and possibly lies. <...> If you would like to learn how to make a philosophical argument, you can Google, "How to Argue Philosophically" <...> Please review at least one of these before responding to this post, and try to get back on topic.

Do you feel better now?

 

The only thing that you have stated thus far is that the memories were false in order to support a self-identify. Since we ALL have a self-identity, logically that means that all of our memories are "likely?" false. THIS IS NONSENSE.

What is "nonsense" is your conclusion here. Yes, we all have a self-identity. Yes, I suspect that TurionX's conclusion that he's been logical since birth is an invented narrative. Yes, that is an opinion (but not an uninformed one). I have never argued otherwise, and have even been cautious to use qualifying language such as "probably" and "likely" when posting. None of that has any bearing whatsoever on "all memories" of "all people" or anything similar.

 

You said that "logically this means X," and your stated X is non sequitur... meaning it's a logical fallacy, not a logical conclusion. Since you were so kind as to lay it out for me like I'm a kindergartner, let me return the favor and reciprocate.

 

Memories can be either real or false, or some combination. Self-identities can be supported by both real and false memories. Self-identities have different aspects and components. I suggested that this one aspect of Turions self-identity (that he was born innately knowing what logic and philosophy are) is likely based on a memory of the false variety (given my own knowledge after years of study of the human mind, our developmental stages and process, and innate abilities). I am NOT, however, making any assertions or suggestions about all memories, nor about all people as you and Turion both continue to suggest. Given how you both seem to prize your logical natures, I find it odd that you would make such a remedial fallacy of composition.

 

As should be clear to someone with such obvious education and profound intelligence as yourself... someone so much better than the rest of us knuckle-dragging booger-picking paste-eating inbred snaggle-toothed peons... my comments were specific to this one aspect of Turions self-identity and autobiographical narrative, not to all memories, all people, nor all aspects of all self-identities.

 

This will be my last post on this topic, which has quickly become yet another example of why I find most of these philosophy threads to be of such little value to me.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Gees, calm down. There's no need to get so defensive and personal towards iNow.

[Gees]

Gees,

 

If one needs to read two papers on how to argue philosophically, I would think this would argue strongly in favor of having to learn such, rather than be born being able to do such.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Tar;

 

That would seem to be correct. But I was making reasoned philosophical arguments from early childhood, and I did not read any papers regarding how to make a philosophical argument.

 

My friends and siblings used to tell me that I liked to argue, but that never made any sense to me, because I hated confrontation, avoided quarrels, and had a reputation as a person who would literally walk a mile to avoid a conflict. But I loved digging into the root of any issue and looking for the truth in it. I saw this as discussion, maybe heated, but still discussion. By the time I reached my teens, my siblings changed their minds and stated that I liked to analyze everything. I think that was closer to the truth.

 

The reason that I looked up "How to Argue Philosophically" is because most people look to Formal Logic as a way to learn how to address philosophical issues, but Formal Logic does not work. When I first posted at a philosophy forum, I realized that I would have to learn about Formal Logic, so I looked up an on-line site. In the Introduction of that site, it explained that Formal Logic has absolutely nothing to do with truth. It stated that truth can be proven false, and something that is false can be proven true. So I wondered, "What is the point of this?"

 

Heidegger noted that Formal Logic was a "school room tool" that was used by instructors to check the consistency of an argument, but it could not make an argument. Reason is required to make a philosophical argument. So I was looking for a way to help someone, who obviously knew a good deal about Formal Logic and nothing about a philosophical argument.

 

Formal Logic is to a philosophical argument, what talking is to sex. A little of it at the right times and in the right way can enhance the experience, but too much of it is simply a distraction that frustrates the experience. (chuckle)

 

G

Do you feel better now?

 

No. I feel horrid. I have been nauseated ever since I wrote that post. I don't like confrontation, and it is really bad for people with MS.

 

I have never argued otherwise, and have even been cautious to use qualifying language such as "probably" and "likely" when posting. None of that has any bearing whatsoever on "all memories" of "all people" or anything similar.

 

You still do not understand. It is precisely because you used words like "probably" and "likely" that it is not philosophy. If you went into the science part of this forum and you stated that the speed of light was "probably" X, or that the Earth was "likely" to take X amount of time to circle the sun, would that be acceptable? No, because it is not fact. Science deals in facts; philosophy deals in truths -- not probabilities, not likelihoods, not opinions.

 

Memories can be either real or false, or some combination. Self-identities can be supported by both real and false memories. Self-identities have different aspects and components. I suggested that this one aspect of Turions self-identity (that he was born innately knowing what logic and philosophy are) is likely based on a memory of the false variety (given my own knowledge after years of study of the human mind, our developmental stages and process, and innate abilities).

 

Try to look at this from a different perspective. Suppose I go to another forum and someone there decides that they are a "natural-born philosopher". So I state that it is very unlikely and probably the result of false memories. So they say, "How do you know that?" Then I respond with, "iNow told me and s/he knows all about it." How far do you think that would fly?

 

If you have studied and know about innate abilities, why are you not sharing the information?

 

I am NOT, however, making any assertions or suggestions about all memories, nor about all people as you and Turion both continue to suggest. Given how you both seem to prize your logical natures, I find it odd that you would make such a remedial fallacy of composition.

I am not suggesting anything. I am looking for your truth.

 

Consider:

 

A. All memories are true.

 

B. All memories are false.

 

C. Memories can be true or false under these specific circumstances. (reason given)

 

Pick one, and if it is C, then give a reason. A reason that can be verified or disputed.

 

This will be my last post on this topic, which has quickly become yet another example of why I find most of these philosophy threads to be of such little value to me.

 

Philosophy threads that do not deal in philosophy are of little value to anyone. People will readily understand that science must base it's work on facts -- if the original facts are not valid, then nothing of value will come out of it. But they refuse to understand that philosophy works the same way. If the underlying truths are not valid, then nothing of value will come out of it. Simple truth.

 

G

[tar]

Gees,

 

Yesterday morning when I got to my cart in the lab, I was perplexed at the fact that where I remembered there being a coffee cup, and two partially consumed Snapples, on the paper towel on the shelf where I always keep such things, there was just a paper towel with the stained ring of where a coffee cup once was. Something about my memory was false. I must have left the coffee cup on the coffee machine. It was not there, and I inspected the kitchen area to see if someone had found it and washed it and put it in the strainer, but it was not there. Was someone playing a joke on me? Maybe, but not likely, but where was my cup, and my Snapples? I began a trek to a meeting room, where I possibly could have taken the cup, but did not remember having the cup at the meeting. On the way, I saw my cup, sitting on a desk where I had never sat, and wondered how it got there. Then I remembered someone had asked to borrow a mouse and I had inspected an unattached mouse at a workmates desk, found it was not the right type for the person in need, and gone back into the lab to search for the right type in a drawer. I must have had the coffee cup in my hand when I said hello to the guy that needed the mouse, and put it down on the desk to inspect the unattached mouse, and never reached for my cup at my cart, for the rest of the day, to miss it.

 

My memory was adjusted, or refreshed, and I logically put back together what had had to have truely happened to fit all the facts. I do not actually remember placing the cup on the desk, but I "figure" it had to have happened, because all the facts fit nicely together that way.

 

Now consider the OP's contention that he "remembered" being a philosopher at birth. In actuality, the first things he saw when he opened his eyes were two images of the world, one from his left eye, and one from his right, and because of the nature of the lens of his eye, everything was actually backward and upside down. He had to learn how to true the sensations from his eyes and his inner ear and his extremities, with each other, to determine such basic philosophical questions as what is up, what is down, what is left, what is right, what is near, what is far. He had to learn how to focus and converge the two images his eyes provided into one sensible image of the world, that corresponded with the sensations from his ears and bottom, fingers and toes, nose and skin. He had to learn about his own body and the world around him.

 

He had not yet ever seen a cat, nor learned the English word for one. He could not possibly remember being a philosopher, at birth, because he could not possibly have read any Kant or Plato, to know what one was. It had to have been a false memory.

 

Regards, TAR2

Could a Muslim, who knows every word of the Koran, remember a time when they did not know every word of the Koran?

 

Are Muslims born with such knowledge?

 

Absolutely NOT.

Even if you sat a zillion monkeys down at a zillion typewriters they could not type the Koran ever, accidently, or inately, unless the typewriter was set with Arabic characters.

 

You can true up the world to your image of it, but so can every human. We are all born philosophers by this measure. But we still have to learn what we know, and "make" ourselves into philosophers or scientists or politicians or artist or whatever. And we learn a great deal from each other, and those that have experienced this world and learned about this world, before us. And it is only in reference to other people that you could call one person a philosopher and another person not one.

 

As you would say Gees, its a matter of opinion.

So, what happened to the two Snapples, I don't remember drinking?

 

The truth of the matter is I must have drunk them and recycled the bottles.

And it would take someone who already knew what the Koran was, to inspect the reams of paper the monkeys generated to determine if indeed the Koran had been identically reproduced.

[cladking]

 

 

Common ground is what philosophy and science is all about. If you cannot find the grounds upon which to converse with others, because your way of thinking is of a better kind than anyone else possesses, then I would guess you might be incorrect. Either others stand on the same ground, and you are unaware, or you have no ground to stand on.

 

 

 

 

It looks like the common ground I thought might exist is quicksand.

 

Some people simply do not share enough definitions, axioms, and perspective to communicate effectively.

 

Normally such differences can be agreed upon with effort but trying to explain every post to every person on a message board is not a good use of time.

 

Now consider the OP's contention that he "remembered" being a philosopher at birth. In actuality, the first things he saw when he opened his eyes were two images of the world, one from his left eye, and one from his right, and because of the nature of the lens of his eye, everything was actually backward and upside down. He had to learn how to true the sensations from his eyes and his inner ear and his extremities, with each other, to determine such basic philosophical questions as what is up, what is down, what is left, what is right, what is near, what is far. He had to learn how to focus and converge the two images his eyes provided into one sensible image of the world, that corresponded with the sensations from his ears and bottom, fingers and toes, nose and skin. He had to learn about his own body and the world around him.

 

 

 

People are born with a brain and so far as I know it was fully functional for weeks before birth. You say images are upside down but what does a baby know about such things? A baby must think in its own terms and with its own knowledge. But this brain must already have basic programming and some basic way to gain knowledge even before birth. There is probably some internal logic to this programming since nature is logical. If it hurts to touch something then don't touch it.

 

I see no reason to believe that an individual can't attend to this internal logic or a possible expression of that logic (natural language) virtually from birth. That none of us here other than perhaps the OP remembers such a thing doesn't make it impossible any more than his remembering means we should believe it.

 

In my experience some people are strongly predisposed to being philosophical and show this while young.

Even if you sat a zillion monkeys down at a zillion typewriters they could not type the Koran ever, accidently, or inately, unless the typewriter was set with Arabic characters.

 

 

4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000.

 

Well that's how many you need for "War and Peace".

 

The Koran exists in English and no tool can exceed its nature.

[tar]

cladking,

 

(is that opposed to "the emperor has no clothes")

 

The number you give is a very large number, but I am thinking it is not large enough. Because in amoungst the strings of trials before War and peace was successfully accidently reproduced, there might (must) have been one produced with a spelling mistake on page 323. And another almost completely War and Peace missing a word on page 22. Every possible errored War and Peace would need to be counted as well, and every other work of that length or shorter that you can think of, would also have to have been reproduced and so on. I am thinking rather the number would be something like a base 100 number (all the keys on the keyboard shifted and unshifted) the number of digits long that war an peace has characters, symbols, spaces and tabs. And that is a number larger than probably the estimate of atoms in the universe x the number of seconds since the big bang. In other words, I don't think it is possible for a monkey, or any number of monkeys, that don't know a language, or how to use a typewriter to ever write War and Peace. And besides how would we know they had managed the feat? Who is checking the output? And does it count if a monkey would eat a perfect page 64 while he/she was typing a perfect page 234? Does the successful reproduction need to be typed by the same monkey, and all the pages kept in order and carefully stacked? It is just plain impossible for it to happen unintentionally, there are too many varibles that need to be intentionally eliminated.

 

I have a saying..."You can roll a standard set of dice as many times as you want, and you will NEVER get a queen of spades. For that you need a standard set of cards."

 

In reference to the OP, inate language ability and thinking ability does not mean you are born able to speak fluent Chinese. You need someone to teach you Chinese.

 

Regards, TAR2

Gees,

 

A related reincarnation question for you. If your former incarnations included a literate Frenchman and a literate Chinese woman, wouldn't you be able to read and write in French and Chinese, before you learned your native tongue? And a harder question still, would you know the Chinese word for internet?

 

Regards, TAR2

[cladking]

cladking,

 

(is that opposed to "the emperor has no clothes")

 

The number you give is a very large number, but I am thinking it is not large enough. Because in amoungst the strings of trials before War and peace was successfully accidently reproduced, there might (must) have been one produced with a spelling mistake on page 323. And another almost completely War and Peace missing a word on page 22. Every possible errored War and Peace would need to be counted as well, and every other work of that length or shorter that you can think of, would also have to have been reproduced and so on. I am thinking rather the number would be something like a base 100 number (all the keys on the keyboard shifted and unshifted) the number of digits long that war an peace has characters, symbols, spaces and tabs. And that is a number larger than probably the estimate of atoms in the universe x the number of seconds since the big bang. In other words, I don't think it is possible for a monkey, or any number of monkeys, that don't know a language, or how to use a typewriter to ever write War and Peace. And besides how would we know they had managed the feat? Who is checking the output? And does it count if a monkey would eat a perfect page 64 while he/she was typing a perfect page 234? Does the successful reproduction need to be typed by the same monkey, and all the pages kept in order and carefully stacked? It is just plain impossible for it to happen unintentionally, there are too many varibles that need to be intentionally eliminated.

 

I have a saying..."You can roll a standard set of dice as many times as you want, and you will NEVER get a queen of spades. For that you need a standard set of cards."

 

In reference to the OP, inate language ability and thinking ability does not mean you are born able to speak fluent Chinese. You need someone to teach you Chinese.

 

Regards, TAR2

Gees,

 

A related reincarnation question for you. If your former incarnations included a literate Frenchman and a literate Chinese woman, wouldn't you be able to read and write in French and Chinese, before you learned your native tongue? And a harder question still, would you know the Chinese word for internet?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

cladking,

 

(is that opposed to "the emperor has no clothes")

 

 

Some names have meaning on many levels. I'm still learning the levels.

 

The number you give is a very large number, but I am thinking it is not large enough.

 

 

No. Probably not. I only computed it to get a feel for a new computer language and the standard was merely "readable". I figure the actual book will almost always have one misprint or error anyway. I think I figured base 30 and you might not even need a z or a q. The point is simply that there isn't room in the universe even for so many atoms much less monkeys and typewriters.

 

I wouln't want to discard a perfect copy just because the Monkey came up with "War and Piece".

 

In reference to the OP, inate language ability and thinking ability does not mean you are born able to speak fluent Chinese. You need someone to teach you Chinese.

 

 

I believe there was a "natural" human language that has been replaced by modern language. I believe this natural language reflects brain operation which will be similar in most individuals. I believe babies are born with some ability to communicate in this natural language. But even if I'm wrong about these things there should be some thought occuring in all babies. Our inability to comprehend this thought is irrelevant.

 

Babies are not a blank slate except as it relates to learning Chinese, French, or English.

[tar]

And I am rather sure that the odds are extremely high, that somewhere long before the last page "pwa roe8 va" would be typed, EVERY time anything even started to look like it might be War and Peace, and any human would have a biased or illogical thought, long before they knew the truths and had the insights and learned enough about the world and human experience, to be called a philosopher.

Cladking,

 

I x posted that last little bit.

 

I do think you are right about the natural language. It jives with the Universal Grammar that many linquists suggest is evident in all languages. And secondly it makes sense in another way, that we all have the same world to think about, using a very standardly arranged group of senses and brain folds.

 

But it is not a natural language that has been obscured by dialects, but one that has been enhanced by conventions and standard symbols and such, with which to share experiences and learn about the world through stories and descriptions, verbal and writen. It is the stuff hopes and dreams are made of, to know that others share your thoughts, and you have theirs.

 

I have told this before, but I hear that I used to communicate with my sister, before I could "talk English" in what was "babble" and "gibberish" to my Dad. My sister knew what I meant. She learned to understand TAR babble.

 

I also think that we communicate with ourselves in our own personal language, when we dream. We know what is standing for what, even if the most learned interpreter of dreams can not unravel the code.

 

So yes, we have a natural language, but it is the meaning behind the words and symbols that we converse with ourselves in. And there is this same meaning behind the language we converse with each other in. A cat is still a cat, a ham sandwich is still a ham sandwich, a cloud is still a cloud, a sister is still a sister, hunger is still hunger, joy is still joy, loss is still loss, no matter what language you talk about such in.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Rajnish Kaushik]

i don't agree with u sir because some people do learn philosophy and become good philosopher indeed

[tar]

Rajnish,

 

Well isn't that what I have been arguing, that you have to learn philosophy?

 

How is your statement disagreeing with my argument?

 

Unless perhaps we each have a different idea of what philosophy is.

 

Several of the women I work with are from India and speak Telegu, if that tells you anything about their area and beliefs. I mentioned philosophy to one in a discussion and the next day there was a paper turned face down on my desk with what was evidently her idea of what philosophy was all about.

 

It was entited Divine theme by Meher Baba May 17, 1943 and pictured the situation we are supposedly in with the gross world and the subtle world and the mental world, with gross consciousness increasing in an "evolution" of souls, in a winding process from stone souls to metal souls to vegetable souls to worm souls to fish souls to bird souls to animal soul and finally human souls which go through various lifes as women/men, germans, english, americans, indians, persian,s mohammedens, christians, and harsers (whatever that is) where as a human you have a chance to burn off your sanskaras in an unwinding process or realization process from the subtle to the mental that takes you to a god state where you are connected to both the Master's soul and the gross world.

 

So now that I learned that, and taught that to everybody reading this, we are now all philosophers. Right?

 

Regards, TAR2

I asked my friend at work if she knew what a metaphor was. She was not familiar with the word.

Edited January 17, 2014 by tar

[Rajnish Kaushik]

Rajnish,

 

Well isn't that what I have been arguing, that you have to learn philosophy?

 

How is your statement disagreeing with my argument?

 

Unless perhaps we each have a different idea of what philosophy is.

 

Several of the women I work with are from India and speak Telegu, if that tells you anything about their area and beliefs. I mentioned philosophy to one in a discussion and the next day there was a paper turned face down on my desk with what was evidently her idea of what philosophy was all about.

 

It was entited Divine theme by Meher Baba May 17, 1943 and pictured the situation we are supposedly in with the gross world and the subtle world and the mental world, with gross consciousness increasing in an "evolution" of souls, in a winding process from stone souls to metal souls to vegetable souls to worm souls to fish souls to bird souls to animal soul and finally human souls which go through various lifes as women/men, germans, english, americans, indians, persian,s mohammedens, christians, and harsers (whatever that is) where as a human you have a chance to burn off your sanskaras in an unwinding process or realization process from the subtle to the mental that takes you to a god state where you are connected to both the Master's soul and the gross world.

 

So now that I learned that, and taught that to everybody reading this, we are now all philosophers. Right?

 

Regards, TAR2

I asked my friend at work if she knew what a metaphor was. She was not familiar with the word.

i agree with you but against the post (main)

[tar]

Cladking,

 

I am afraid, given the random nature of the monkeys' abilities at striking the keyboard, it would be just as likely it would be "War and Pbace" as "War and Peice". You would have to reject them both, as NOT being "War and Peace", as they both have a letter wrong. The fact that one is a synonym does not count, because a monkey does not know what a synonym is, and you would be adding a bit of human bias to your judgement of the exactness of their reproduction.

 

Regards, TAR

And you would be suggesting that the monkey knew what he meant, just typed a phoenetic spelling of the word he was thinking, which does not go at all with the assumption that the keys are being hit in a completely unintentional manner. The monkeys would "just as likely" type out the entire thing in Morse code by hitting the space bar in the right rythym for that, and you would have completely missed it, unless you knew Morse code, and were listening for it.

After all, people see Jesus' face in the carmelized uncarmelized areas of a toasted cheese sandwhich. What are the odds of THAT?

And how many horse shaped clouds have we missed? And what is the total number of coded messages available to a numerologist seeing patterns in the "good book"?

 

I think War and Peace, in the exact form it was written, in the hand it was written in, on the paper it was written on, with the ink that was used, with the words and meaning in the exact form and order in which they were presented by the Author, could only happen the one way, and the one time, that it did. Anything else, would not be that, in one way, or another. Even if attempted intentionally.

There is no chance that the exact conditions willl ever be repeated. None at all.

The universe can't even get two snowflakes to match exactly.

Edited January 18, 2014 by tar

[Dekan]

I've mulled several times through the above posts.

 

They give rise to a few questions:

 

1. tar says in #48 "the universe can't even get two snowflakes to match exactly". Can anyone know that's actually true? Have all the snowflakes ever generated, throughout history, been checked against each other, for a possible match?

 

2. On "War and Peace" being reproduced exactly - surely this happens every time the text is printed in a modern book. Of course in past times, before printing was invented, books had to copied out by hand. This led to all kinds of mistakes in spelling, or even whole lines being missed out. But this doesn't happen nowadays.

 

3. tar says in #42, that the number of monkeys required to generate the text of "War and Peace" using a typewriter, would be a number " larger than the estimate of atoms in the Universe X the number of seconds since the Big Bang"

 

That might be true, if the monkeys were using simple mechanical typewriters. But suppose each monkey was typing on the keyboard of a modern computer - or supercomputer - or a Quantum computer which employed superposition of bits?

[tar]

Delkan,

 

Well, as per the thread title, my point was, that you need some established reference point, to refer to. A philosopher can not be born, knowing the reference points that have been conventionally established.

 

Take the snowflake thing. You have to all agree upon a snowflake that you are going to use as the one that has to be matched, then find a way to measure and record all the angles and order of crystals on every other snowflake that ever formed, and then determine to what level of matching you will accept. Is one missing H20 molecule at the end of a certain arm, that was there, but sublimed off, before another arm was complete, going to dash the match? Or is the start of a little six molecule arm on a flake that does not appear on the template, going to disallow the flake as a match?

 

Or the computer thing. Certainly one can encode War and Peace into a particular large number, but you need the code to turn it into letters and words, which can then be read, sequencially over time, and be called War and Peace. The number itself, is not War and Peace. So even if you could count to that number, which I don't think you can, reaching that number would not mean that you have counted to War and Peace, it would mean you have counted to a number, which can be decoded into War and Peace. But without the code, you just have an arbitrary immensely difficult to count to, number. And without the code, you would not know when you have reached the number. And that same number would decode into something else, if a different decoding process was used.

 

So without language, you have no codes, no symbols, nothing to interpret, nothing to judge your thoughts against. A philosopher needs other people to both provide a common set of symbols, and provide another mind to hold the same thought.

 

While a babe, dropped in the woods, and raised by wolves, would be able to experience the world and think about it, use logic, and solve problems, their math and logic, and reasoning skills, and the depth of their knowledge would not compare to that of a university professor...ever, much less on the first day.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And they would probably learn to think, much like a wolf.