Epistemology is to me more what philosophy is about than day-to-day living. Having said that, I would like to see practical philosophy taught in schools etc. the two things are merely two of many different fields of philosophy, I don’t get why one should cut any given field out.
I know what you have done.
Those philosophers also met certain people, had contact with certain ideas …
And they derived certain principles which apply to other people. What’s so weird about that? What’s impossible about it?
The distinction that you make is frankly incomprehensible.
Some words have more embedded meanings and abstractions than others. But when you say anything, you are communicating an abstraction. That is true both for specific personal experiences and general common experiences.
Of course you can have a general experience regarding abortion. You just wrote an entire paragraph without referring to a specific abortion or pregnancy.
You never had an abortion or pregnancy. I never had an abortion or pregnancy. And yet I understood what you wrote.
experience doesn’t translate into words
words don’t translate into experience
You have an experience…how do you tell others
You have the words… but that doesn’t tell us about experience.
experience is about the emotion
words is about the theory
How do you mesh the two?
Kropotkin
The problems of communicating about experiences, are always there. Nothing special about philosophy. 
Experience – the senses, are possibly all observational, words attempt to express our observations. They don’t directly interrelate, much like sound and light, if you know what someone means by their words, then a successful communication has occurred.
So we have different fields which have to be related and referred to one another via a third party.
Why is it a problem that we can’t merge everything into one? all things are informational - but saying that is cheating.
I am Groot.
With love,
Sanjay
I am Groot.
With love,
Sanjay
Sorry for the interference, iamb, but I succumbed to the temptation of putting this pertinent Grooting anology forth.
I hope you forgive me.
Reply in our thread follows tonight.
With love,
Sanjay
This makes about as much sense as one might expect from you. Not that it isn’t true of course. 
Well, Durant’s epistemologists might argue that before we can discuss day to day human interaction we must first agree on that which can be discussed – discussed rationally, logically.
And that involves a technical understanding of the rules of language.
True enough. But sooner or later they have to be willing to take all that is claimed can be known about these things and plug it into our day to day interactions. And in particular [from my frame of mind] interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.
Are there or are there not limitations regarding what can in fact be known here? Objectively as it were.
Now, I’m not arguing that these limitations necessarily do exist. I’m only pointing out that I have not come upon any arguments of late that convince me that they don’t.
Okay, so why can’t I ever get you to do the same?
Yes, most philosophers will make the attempt to intertwine deduction and induction, rationalism and empiricism, phenomena and noumena, a priori and a posteori frames of mind. And yet to this day there are still hundreds and hundreds of moral and political conflicts that remain hotly in dispute.
Indeed, point to a single issue in which all philosophers are completely in agreement regarding behaviors that rational men and women are obligated to pursue.
And then there are the narcissists/sociopaths who root morality solely within the framework of their own self-gratification. Where is the “epistemologically sound” argument that obviates this point of view?
In a world sans God in other words.
How does this make the words that we use here any more or less connected to the lives that we live?
Where are the words able to demonstrate that the lessons you learned from your own personal experiences are applicable to all?
Note to others:
How is this an adequate rejoinder to the point I raised? A point that makes a distinction between abortion as a medical procedure and abortion as a moral issue.
After all, there are doctors who will all agree on the most rational manner in which to perform an abortion; and yet [like the rest of us] will be profoundly at odds regarding whether [or when] this procedure ought to be performed.
What particular experience in what particular context reacted to in what particular way?
And: What can the words that we choose encompass/describe/depict it more or less objectively?
This thread started out with some potential because it seemed to recognize that there are two ways to approach philosophical problems … grounded in abstract concepts or grounded on daily experience. The daily experience being the kernel of existence and the abstract concepts forming around the kernel and hiding it.
If one could get to kernel, then one would have a more practical, objective, philosophy.
I posted because I think that’s an important and desirable goal.
Unfortunately, the discussion is again being framed in the same terms that Iambig always uses. It’s the same jargon, the same approach, which prevents getting closer to the kernel.
This is a thread started by me. So by now most will no doubt suspect that the “gist” of the OP will revolve around the extent to which abstract jargon like yours [here] gets us any closer to the “objective truth” when that truth revolves around intertwining an epistemological framework and a moral/political agenda pertaining to actual conflicting human behaviors.
Over and again I ask those who embrace particular political values in the “society and government forum” to connect the dots between those values and the manner in which in the “philosophy forum” they encompass the nature of valuing itself.
In other words, the manner in which they make a distinction between subjective/subjunctive opinions [the ones “in their heads”] and objective truths [the facts that are applicable to all of us].
I merely ask them to bring all this “down to earth” in the manner in which I convey the meaning of that “in my head”.
That’s the part that you generally eschew altogether.
Again, most objectivists that I have come across over the years seem to assume that the “kernel of truth” revolves around their own “ideals”. And then [scholastically, academically, didactically] they “lecture” us on why/how the manner in which the conclusions that they have derived from their own personal experiences ought to be the conclusions that we derive from ours.
Always one or another rendition of this:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the Ideal
3] I have access to the Ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the Objective World
4] I grasp the one true nature of the Objective World because I am rational
How are you any different?
Indeed, the one thing that we can almost certainly count on now is that you won’t choose a particular moral conflict of note and take it down to the intersection of epistemology and applied ethics.
Epistemology covers a lot of ground. It’s always going to produce a theoretical discussion.
To bring the philosophy closer to daily living, the scope has to be narrowed and the terms have to be accessible on a daily basis. Discuss one small aspect of epistemology and talk about it with the plain words of common experience.
In order to understand the limits of knowledge epistemology is a great place to start.
You’re the one using jargon, not me.
Just had lunch. What does epistemology mean to me now? What practical use is it on this wonderful day?
See what I mean:
Indeed, the one thing that we can almost certainly count on now is that you won’t choose a particular moral conflict of note and take it down to the intersection of epistemology and applied ethics.