Is it possible for nuance to emerge from people without debate between them or within themselves as a way to get to that refined conclusion?
- peter mLv 61 month ago
"Nuance" might work but if you think that
it can -getting to better and better conclusions- without WORK
then no it is not possible
After much work & perhaps inconsistent criticism here
I realised that what was wrong with the answers here
of the stunted work of commentators (of naive philosophy)
was really because 'they hadn't grown up".
Not just philosophically but mentally too.. as if like children
they had LEARNED TOO Well to accept things on face value
just like they were taught.
I knew it was easy-to-get this wrong, that I could be totally
mistaken about some dudes here professing & writing at
length about the work of philosophers I had only heard and
read about in encyclopedias etc.
But it wasn't too hard to work-them-out.. especially once I
realised that not only WAS THERE a pattern to all their
various thinkings but also that some seemed to be agreement
with the most obtuse (historical) studies, like Ancient Greeks
and the society from whence the scholars like Plato etcetera
I'd already read & understood the brilliant books of Popper
"The Open Socienty and its Enemies" which includes much
of the work of various ancient Greeks and all..
it seemed to me as if then there as a serious mismatch between
what I'd learned & what a lot here were implying..
This came-to-a-crux when almost "out of the blue" some
time ago someone posted a short but telling line to
me when discussing philosophy from those ancient times ;
The line was " No new philosophy (Under the Sun) " and
as it was obviously out-of-context I couldn't undertand it
straight away. But after a short time cross-referencing &
putting it into the context-it-was-meant I realised just what
was being said.. which was that the writer was stating
that there WERE NO NEW Philosophy theories from that
Odd I thought? Very odd I thought because why then were
those other guys like Descartes, Bacon, Bergson, Lucasiuwic,
and all doing-in-philosophy? Were they ALL HISTORIANS,
just telling each-a-slightly-different history of the past?
No, that could not have been (just one reading of some of those
would show the truth which was not that they were just
"story tellers" who just happened "to come" after the ancient
I found in fact that the writer of that maxim above really meant
what was implied, that since the Greeks there WERE NO
REAL Theories of philosophy since that time!
And so NO NEW Philosophy either !
That "done it" for me... if anyone was so stupid & naive to
believe such nonsense then it had to be because -as a group
thing- they HAD BEEN LED to believing this in some sort
of TEACHING way ; and as THIS NORMALLY occurs in
school as a necessary-behaviour-change then I put 2 and
2 together to make four ; and that indeed some naive people
and probably students had been taught and conditioned
to believe that those Ancient Greek Philosophers were so
brilliant as to have thought OF ALL Philosophy necessary
for the rest of humanity !
And if Any Of those conditioned commentators had even read
The "Open Society and its Enemies" which is openly but
reasonably critical of Plato et al -especially so since I guess
Popper himself must have been exposed to the some similar
and ridiculous worship that has been going-on in and
around this whole STORY of the ancient Greeks etc...
they would have realised I hope their mistake, their mistake
in subjugating themselves educationally to such a ridiculously
extreme view that there could be no useful philosophy After
such Greeks over two thousand years ago now.
"Beggers belief" they should have thought.
Anyway after that I also took a keen interest if anyone had
a Lot-to-say on some subject or some problem. One particularly
who still does that is j153e, quite a prolific writer some of the
time. So it was natural that someone like me would "cut their
teeth" on what he had to say. And I didn't care that he was
a religious commentator - he may well have had some
reasonably consistent views leading to some valuable and
problem solving philosophy.
But it was a total "mismash" - an inconsistent and frankly at
times comments which were almost completely at odds with
some logical and rational philosophy which I'd had understood.
I probed deeper and deeper until after another frustrating
episode of his I looked again at what he'd previously answered
& asked... specifically within the category of philosophy. And
... the guy HAD NEVER ASKED A PHILOSOPHY Question...
What exactly did this mean? Does someone EVER know
enough as to NEVER Need-to-ask new and fresh questions
of and concerning philosophy?
Of course they do.
What are philosophers doing RIGHT NOW ? Huh ?
So there was only one reasonable conclusion in my view
of that prolific philosophy commentator,
Which was that he was being guided by his religion to seek
out answers within Philosophy.
But what if there wee a CLASH between these two, his religion
and the philosophy being sources ?
Then that could be easily explained away, and is sometimes is
if you care to look. But for an objectivist philosopher that is No
Good, no reasonable way of doing of searching for philosophical
truth. NO WAY AT ALL... because in fact instead of a real
search what happens IN THIS case is that "objective type philosophy"
gets DUMBED DOWN in-favour-of the more preferred religiously
learned and accepted philosophy. And when I called this out,
admittedly too crudely-but-instinctively- I now feel.. when that
happened I also instantly realised that his writings & clarifications
throughout lacked that one thing which IS Vital now in modern
His so-called philosophy lacked a "Critical character" so to speak ;
It Lacked CRITICISM and it also looked as if the guy was AFRAID
of it - of using it so to speak.
That was it really.... j153e had not-so-much-Learned-philosophy
as he had learned that philosophy WAS NOT A Progressive self
contained category, a rightly independent DISCIPLINE..
Instead it was something historical which like the ancient Greek
apparent Philosophy, was in no need of a need to advance, of
NEW Philosophy so to speak. And likely then the overwhelming
reason for this IN THIS particular case is the fact that his
RELIGION is "turned to" whenever there is say a clash with
a philosophy problem , or answer and some common-sense
problem or situation so to speak. And so the RELIGION and
a religious & NON CRITICAL Solution, is expected and later
-or sooner- agreed.
And such agreement can be In-one's-(uncritical) mind wherefor
and after it is WRITTEN DOWN it shows itself to be of a
"Closed type character",
Similar to a "closed system" and not of some stated Open type
And that tied-in-for me with the illogical & irrational (closed) meanderings
that are too evidently prevalent within that guy's writings.
And so behavioural philosophy "which has not Grown Up" so to speak.
Something that I have learned which may be a valuable lesson
to another.Source(s): a continuing search.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Of course. Or do you think every one-author novel is devoid of nuance?