Philosophy in 10 easy steps

It seems to me the former must include some of the latter, though at the level of epistemology (and likely views of perception, object subject relations, realism). IOW intuited axioms not simply about methodology but about why that methodology and not others, so ontology. I don’t see anyone as either fully rationalistic or fully empiricist. Also it seems like you are focusing on a portion of scientific thinking, that having to do with models. One could work primarily rationalistically to come up with models, ontology, then only give them up or modify/adjust them when empirical contradictions arise. IOW not like the scientists, who in the ideal only accept things that seem very probable - are more enamoured of putting Occam’s Razor up front. What I am saying here is that mainly Rationalist person could mix in some empirical checks, but have an innocent until proven guilty heuristic regarding what is come upon intuitively. (something most of us do regardless of system. We don’t clean house completely at 18 and move forward listeing to God inwardly or learning through empirical research only. We work with the mixed batch of ideas and beliefs we have at that point we begin trying to be consistent.) The Rationalist need not conclude that their models are absolute. Even they could have revision, but the source of their ideas is different. I see R vs. E as a methodological dispute rather than the dispute between approximation and fixed. Rationalists change their minds, sometimes and can remain primarily rationalists.

I suppose I was also bring up the idea that we base a lot of our beliefs on authority, E people and R people. both groups use intuition about which experts to believe and how provisionally, how much doubt they must have to begin questioning and how they go about that, when they decide they are satisfied that the experts in question should continue to be believed, how much a relevent idea of set of data could possibly be marginalized, if there might be paradigmatic reasons why a phenomenon was considered impossible and so on.

The science vs Rationalist/religious, makes it seem like third parties are not involved. But the individual waking up today or waking up at 20 and wondering if what they believe is right or fairly approximately right, is coming from ideas of experts, likely to consider methodologies for investigating because of authorities already accepted, and if challenging going to utilize other authorities at least in part to challenge the first ones.

They will not be tabula rasa thinking scientifically or tabula rasa thinking rationalistically and without using some received ideas moving forward.

To find a real atheist is as difficult as to find a real God.

The last two sentences are biased comments.

Science is not free of religion and rationalism.

“Political science”? You - the one who says “philosophy is not science but art” - are saying that philosophy is “political science”? You contradict yourself.

Yes, you must master your language and also know at least two foreign languages that are not much related with each other.

A biased comment again (see also: 2)

And again:

So 8, 9, and 10 are also the most biased comments (compare them with 2 and 7).

No. It is not helpful, because it is either too vague (see 1 and 3), self-contradictory (see 4), and too much biased (see 2, 7, and especially 8, 9, 10). Only two (see 5 and 6) “steps” are good, although not good enough.

Sorry.

Try again.

Or ask Mephistopheles.

[tab][/tab]

So what?

No shit.

Hamburger is not free of rat shit. Should we prefer the rat shit?

I take it that nuanced use of language is not your thing. Did I claim that political science was science?

I’m going to take a crazy guess and say that you have done that. I take it that English is not one of them. Which is fine. Not a criticism.

I hope everything I say is biased. It’s supposed to be. You don’t seem to get much about this philosophy thing. That’s okay - we’re all still learning.

By the way, I use “Faust” because it’s my name.

What “so what?”? Your “1st step” is pretty nonsensical.

What are you talking about? It seems that you are again slightly off-topic. If you want someone to take your “philosophy in 10 easy steps” seriously, then vour biased comments are the wrong means, unless they are meant rhetorically or satirically (but just not seriously in the sense of the topic of your thread). It seem that you are a comedian who does not know much about philosophy.

I did not know that you were only a cynic. So sorry for taking you seriously.

Your “nuanced use of language” is just the opposite of nuanced use of language. You seem to know nothing about language.

Faust is saying that philosophy is “not science” and “political science”. =D>

Did you claim anything at all?

Q.E.D… You are the one who does not seem to get much about this philosophy thing.

This seems to be a typical statement of a politically correct hypocrite, thus again a cynic.

And I use “Arminius”, because it is my name.

“Army” is quite another matter.

[tab][/tab]

By the way: I love Faust - and Mephistopheles too.

[tab][/tab]

Army - You mean that your parents named you Arminius?

BTW, why are you so afraid of bias? Embracing your bias sure beats embracing your fear.

For those who may think the Dr Seuss recommendation was a joke, well this is no joke…

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches-
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches-Had none upon thars.

Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small.
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
They’d hike right on past them without even talking.

When the Star-Belly children went out to play ball,
Could a Plain- Belly get in the game…? Not at all.
You only could play if your bellies had stars
And the Plain-Belly children had none upon thars.

When the Star-Belly Sneetches had frankfurter roasts
Or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,
They never invited the Plain-Belly Sneetches.
They left them out cold, in the dark of the beaches.
They kept them away. Never let them come near.
And that’s how they treated them year after year.

Then ONE day, seems…while the Plain-Belly Sneetches
Were moping and doping alone on the beaches,
Just sitting there wishing their bellies had stars…
A stranger zipped up in the strangest of cars!

“My friends,” he announced in a voice clear and keen,
“My name is Sylvester McMonkey McBean.
And I’ve heard of your troubles. I’ve heard you’re unhappy.
But I can fix that. I’m the Fix-it-Up Chappie.
I’ve come here to help you. I have what you need.
And my prices are low. And I work at great speed.
And my work is one hundred per cent guaranteed!

Then, quickly Sylvester McMonkey McBean
Put together a very peculiar machine.
And he said, “You want stars like a Star-Belly Sneetch…?
My friends, you can have them for three dollars each!”

“Just pay me your money and hop right aboard!”
So they clambered inside. Then the big machine roared
And it klonked. And it bonked. And it jerked. And it berked
And it bopped them about. But the thing really worked!
When the Plain-Belly Sneetches popped out, they had stars!
They actually did. They had stars upon thars!

Then they yelled at the ones who had stars at the start,
“We’re exactly like you! You can’t tell us apart.
We’re all just the same, now, you snooty old smarties!
And now we can go to your frankfurter parties.”

“Good grief!” groaned the ones who had stars at the first.
“We’re still the best Sneetches and they are the worst.
But, now, how in the world will we know,” they all frowned,
“If which kind is what, or the other way round?”

Then came McBean with a very sly wink.
And he said, “Things are not quite as bad as you think.
So you don’t know who’s who. That is perfectly true.
But come with me, friends. Do you know what I’ll do?
I’ll make you, again, the best Sneetches on beaches
And all it will cost you is ten dollars eaches.”

“Belly stars are no longer in style,” said McBean.
“What you need is a trip through my Star-off Machine.
This wondrous contraption will take off your stars
So you won’t look like Sneetches who have them on thars.”
And that handy machine Working very precisely
Removed all the stars from their tummies quite nicely.

Then, with snoots in the air, they paraded about

And they opened their beaks and they let out a shout,
“We know who is who! Now there isn’t a doubt.
The best kind of Sneetches are Sneetches without!”

Then, of course, those with stars all got frightfully mad.
To be wearing a star now was frightfully bad.
Then, of course, old Sylvester McMonkey McBean
Invited them into his star-off machine.

Then, of course from THEN on, as you probably guess,
Things really got into a horrible mess.
All the rest of that day, on those wild screaming beaches,
The fix-it-up Chappie kept fixing up Sneetches.
Off again! On Again! In again! Out again!
Through the machines they raced round and about again,
Changing their stars every minute or two.
They kept paying money. They kept running through
Until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
Whether this one was that one…or that one was this one
Or which one was what one …or what one was who.

Then, when every last cent
Of their money was spent,
The Fix-it-Up Chappie packed up
And he went.

And he laughed as he drove
In his car up the beach,
“They never will learn.
No. You can’t teach a Sneetch!”

But McBean was quite wrong. I’m quite happy to say
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day,
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars
And whether they had one, or not, upon thars.

I agree about Suess. A very important person often overlooked.
But, I am a person who does not care about the creator of a work. Who did it has zero importance. It is the work that counts. Quite likely because I have read so many works that I cannot keep track of who wrote what. That confusion set me down a path of content and comprehension rather than ability to quote or use titles and names. The works of humans come from one entity and that simply is the species. The whole over individual. This includes all art and sciences. Think about not identifying works , think about just the work. Remove category, it is an interesting difficult perspective. Communicating this way is rather impossible to do. But, it can be done and can give an interesting view. I might need more coffee, I must be off to take care of a chicken raised by Lovebirds and cats… Very interesting behaviors showing up in Avery.

The Sneetches may be Seuss’ best work, from a philosophical point of view.

I may have confused a couple of people, however. People are, of course, free to take my list as seriously as they please. My point about Seuss is that it’s not so important how seriously you might take me (it’s not important at all, in fact) but it’s important how seriously you take yourself.

Geisel was a talented writer and a fair philosopher. The Sneetches is, among other things, about what is truly important and about how people often forget to even try to prioritize values.

We are all biased. We all make value judgments all the time. We need to. We’re supposed to. The prejudices of philosophers aren’t necessarily bad. It depends upon what they are, how well we know them (our own and others’), what we “do” with them.

Intelligence is not so much having a large vocabulary; it’s the ability to learn. It’s a skill that can be practiced.

I enjoyed your list and liked the above one the most. Though, i would have liked to see Nietzsche’s name before Heidegger there.

On the serious note, philosophy starts and depends basically on only one very simple thing, and that is being able to observe keenly, minutely and honestly. If one has that quality, most of the rest would follow automatically.

with love,
sanjay

Why are you so paranoid?

I never said that I was “afraid of bias”.

[tab]The same example:

A.: “You are white”.
F.: “Why are you afraid of whites?”.[/tab]

Then read 10) again, Zinnat.

Just guess why Nietzsche is named here.

David Hume is not as relavant as it sems.

Bertrand Russel is based on Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege. So one should read Frege - not Russel (or Russel later).

Theodor Seuss Geisel is not as relevant as it seems.

That may be true, Sanjay, but a list of one is rather boring, no?

Who knows Faust, you’re probably an asshole for sharing philosophers for being more irrelevant than they seem, apparently. I think we all ought to be ashamed of you for not writing the “definitive philosophy in 10 easy steps” post. It’s obvious this attempt to become a king philosopher by portraying your 10 easy steps is very threatening to the intellectual abilities of us all, or not. Unfortunately, you only provided a biased account with irrelevant stupid things, because you’re a stupid man with stupid biases and I am so much more superior than you. That’s why you shall be criticized unto stupid idiotic shards, because I am the best.

sour grapes never tasted so salty.

It was funny actually, don’t take it so serious

I have seen his name there. But, in my opinion, he is such a philosopher who is neither meant for the beginners not immatures. That may corrupt their naive minds forever. Thus, starters must have some guidance while reading him.

with love,
sanjay

May be, or you even cannot technically call it a list either because it contains only one entry.

with love,
sanjay

Since you bring it up, bias, as such, is just another word for perspective, or point of view, which is what a good philosopher will argue for. Well, a bad philosopher will do the same. Good philosophers just do it better.

“Objective truth” is a term that makes no sense. “The Truth” makes sense. That doesn’t mean it exists. But the term makes sense. The biggest problem purveyors of The Truth have is in convincing other of how they could know it.

It is also another word for lying.

Now here’s a man who clearly knows The Truth.

So how do you know this Truth, Jimmy?