3 ms·

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

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?

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?