3 ms·

That's an interesting point - one I mostly agree with. But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self? And how do you do that, i

by guylhem 14y ago

That's an interesting point - one I mostly agree with. But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self? And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the ones you mentioned? How can you explore ideas if you already fear them?? From my limited understanding of philosophy, changing oneself too much is not desirable, since in the end the orignal opinions and self are lost - http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/ Analysis requires a reference, a broader frame, to detect such pitfalls - it seems pointless to experience ideas whose defaults are already too obvious to you.

kingmanaz 14y ago
>But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self? The point of learning is to change oneself. Socrates addressed this by likening the mind to a wax block, upon which ideas are "stamped" (in his Meno (sp) Plato contradictorily claimed that all knowledge is recalled from a separate preincarnate existence, but that's another topic). In learning one seeks to move from one state of knowing to another. Ideas change oneself. The alternative is shunning ideas, and thereby shunning one's growth. >And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the ones you mentioned? Do not assume one will be inevitably converted by what one reads. >How can you explore ideas if you already fear them? Stop fearing them. Be stoic, or use some other virtue to overcome one's trepidation. >Analysis requires a reference Correct. The reference of analysis are its fundamentals. Much of Aristotle's Organon and Metaphysics, as well as Plato's Timaeus, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Plotinus' Enneads, etc., concern the fundamentals of thought. The examination of these fundamentals, while in some sense "obvious", are in no way "pointless". The true pitfall is fear.

by guylhem 14y ago

kingmanaz 14y ago

>But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self? The point of learning is to change oneself. Socrates addressed this by likening the mind to a wax block, upon which ideas are "stamped" (in his Meno (sp) Plato contradictorily claimed that all knowledge is recalled from a separate preincarnate existence, but that's another topic). In learning one seeks to move from one state of knowing to another. Ideas change oneself. The alternative is shunning ideas, and thereby shunning one's growth. >And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the ones you mentioned? Do not assume one will be inevitably converted by what one reads. >How can you explore ideas if you already fear them? Stop fearing them. Be stoic, or use some other virtue to overcome one's trepidation. >Analysis requires a reference Correct. The reference of analysis are its fundamentals. Much of Aristotle's Organon and Metaphysics, as well as Plato's Timaeus, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Plotinus' Enneads, etc., concern the fundamentals of thought. The examination of these fundamentals, while in some sense "obvious", are in no way "pointless". The true pitfall is fear.