5 ms·

Might want to develop some sensitivity and awareness to never being able to tell the difference between too much studying or not enough studying. "Real studyin

Might want to develop some sensitivity and awareness to never being able to tell the difference between too much studying or not enough studying. "Real studying". Figure out what it means when you don't have anyone to design tests to check your own knowledge for you. Bongs. Is it fun to insult people for thinking? Real studying only means something when you have a teacher and an educational institution. Real world is much harder. You can watch your own understanding loop around itself hundreds of thousands of times. And still not know, do I know anything at all? How many times do you have to observe something before you accept it as fact. 1 time? 2 times, perhaps once indirectly? 3? Infinite? How many ways can a truth be conveyed, and how many ways can you be made to interpret it so you know the difference between being entrusted with an awareness, or whether you've been manipulated into accepting it. Socrates, aka "I know that I know nothing", had 3 books written about him. Aristophanes, The Clouds - he was a bumbling fool. Ever think about why he appeared that way to different sets of people?

dekhn 8y ago
I repeat my suggestion that you put down the bong. You're not making a coherent argument.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  You don't need drugs to have an independent understanding that seems to be nonsensical to others. Just think a lot, mostly alone, think about what everyone says, think about everything you can read and find anywhere, and try to grasp some crystal clear understanding, but by the time you think you have it - gone - trying to explain the process to someone. Actual studying. I'd say it's next to impossible to have a complete understanding about anything. You can always think you have the full understanding, but that's just very specific to whatever test or goal post designed for you, or you design for yourself. Bertrand Russell wrote 370 pages of a book to prove 1 + 1 = 2. Is that coherent enough?
  - dekhn 8y ago
    I literally cannot understand the point you are making. Are you referring to relativism vs. objectivsm? Or, that people can have the understanding of a concept, but lose it in trying to explain it? I'm really trying in good faith you get you to make what I consider a coherent response. Personally, I've studied rhetoric, logic, philosophy (the moral kind), and science (the natural philosophy kind). I have a subtle enough knowledge of all of these to understand and appreciate nearly all points of view and have intelligent discussions with a wide range of people on a wide range of topics. But, so far, nothing you said seems to contradict my statement that the P in PhD refers (with the exception of people getting PhDs in philosophy departments) to natural philosophy, which is to say, the quantitative, experiment and hypothesis based approach to understanding how the universe works, as opposed to moral philosophy, which is a primarily logic-oriented approach to abstract and concrete problems experienced by humans. That those two intersect to some degree, and that some people who obtain PhDs in quantitative fields do spend some time being introspective about moral philosophy, but it's not commonly required in the form of coursework or research. Perhaps the closest relationship between moral philsophy and natural (which is what we now call "science') is math, and it's still very much an undecided problem as to whether math and science are the same thing (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.htm... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... being the two most interesting statements on that problem) and whether the logic employed by philosphers is the same thing as mathematical logic. There is some useful prior writing on this, for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ Ultimately though I just can't see what point you're making. I think you're saying all knowledge is relative, and even scientific/natural philosophy is identical to moral philosophy, rather than "all students of the natural sciences should also take classes in philosophy to develop a more intuitive understanding of epistemeology"
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      > I literally cannot understand the point you are making. You kept insulting me. Why would I try to make a clear point?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
cubano 8y ago
How many times do you have to observe something before you accept it as fact. Post-modern philosophers will quite correctly argue that you can no very little about things just by observing them, and in fact can never get close to complete knowledge that way.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  I don't think I would ever have argued with that. Mechanical languages though, mechanical systems. Not particularly interested in quantum physics. That breaks things down so much to the point that everything can unfold into a somewhat distorted method of processing your own knowledge. Like trying to understand something from both yourself, and what is not yourself. Mathematics. Logic. Those things can be accepted at face value. I think that's the closest one can get to complete knowledge. That's my opinion though.

dekhn 8y ago

I repeat my suggestion that you put down the bong. You're not making a coherent argument.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s-shellfish 8y ago
You don't need drugs to have an independent understanding that seems to be nonsensical to others. Just think a lot, mostly alone, think about what everyone says, think about everything you can read and find anywhere, and try to grasp some crystal clear understanding, but by the time you think you have it - gone - trying to explain the process to someone. Actual studying. I'd say it's next to impossible to have a complete understanding about anything. You can always think you have the full understanding, but that's just very specific to whatever test or goal post designed for you, or you design for yourself. Bertrand Russell wrote 370 pages of a book to prove 1 + 1 = 2. Is that coherent enough?
- dekhn 8y ago
  I literally cannot understand the point you are making. Are you referring to relativism vs. objectivsm? Or, that people can have the understanding of a concept, but lose it in trying to explain it? I'm really trying in good faith you get you to make what I consider a coherent response. Personally, I've studied rhetoric, logic, philosophy (the moral kind), and science (the natural philosophy kind). I have a subtle enough knowledge of all of these to understand and appreciate nearly all points of view and have intelligent discussions with a wide range of people on a wide range of topics. But, so far, nothing you said seems to contradict my statement that the P in PhD refers (with the exception of people getting PhDs in philosophy departments) to natural philosophy, which is to say, the quantitative, experiment and hypothesis based approach to understanding how the universe works, as opposed to moral philosophy, which is a primarily logic-oriented approach to abstract and concrete problems experienced by humans. That those two intersect to some degree, and that some people who obtain PhDs in quantitative fields do spend some time being introspective about moral philosophy, but it's not commonly required in the form of coursework or research. Perhaps the closest relationship between moral philsophy and natural (which is what we now call "science') is math, and it's still very much an undecided problem as to whether math and science are the same thing (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.htm... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... being the two most interesting statements on that problem) and whether the logic employed by philosphers is the same thing as mathematical logic. There is some useful prior writing on this, for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ Ultimately though I just can't see what point you're making. I think you're saying all knowledge is relative, and even scientific/natural philosophy is identical to moral philosophy, rather than "all students of the natural sciences should also take classes in philosophy to develop a more intuitive understanding of epistemeology"
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    > I literally cannot understand the point you are making. You kept insulting me. Why would I try to make a clear point?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

cubano 8y ago

How many times do you have to observe something before you accept it as fact. Post-modern philosophers will quite correctly argue that you can no very little about things just by observing them, and in fact can never get close to complete knowledge that way.

s-shellfish 8y ago
I don't think I would ever have argued with that. Mechanical languages though, mechanical systems. Not particularly interested in quantum physics. That breaks things down so much to the point that everything can unfold into a somewhat distorted method of processing your own knowledge. Like trying to understand something from both yourself, and what is not yourself. Mathematics. Logic. Those things can be accepted at face value. I think that's the closest one can get to complete knowledge. That's my opinion though.