Is this Perception Valuable?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Philosophy belongs to it’s holder and he/she alone. Similarities may emerge with the views of others, but ultimately, each philosophy or worldview is a product of the mind in which it is held to be true, co-habiting and intermingling with sensations, experiences and particular psychologies.

Politics is not philosophy. Politics is the partitioning of the herd across lines which are often simplistic and usually contrived by the influence of propagandas appealing to the hive-mind and it’s constituents. So Philosophy is not representative of power in and of itself nor is it accessible to ‘the crowd’ as per Le Bon, which always tend toward the base, easily swayed by moralisms, sensationalisms, repetition, and mawkishness divorced from all logical analysis.

Philosophy is for YOU.

So: what, is the actual value of philosophy?

That question unlocks it all, and, the approach taken and answer found are key insights into any particular mind.

Philosophy is not primarily about the recognition of, and submission to, Futility.
Philosophy is not primarily about the abandon to, or focus upon, Absurdity.
Philosophy is about Valuing what you Perceive.

An honest philosophy is not simply about removing oneself above and beyond and outside of objective reality in order to eliminate/reduce bias and subjectivity.
CRITICALLY, Philosophy is about removing oneself from the model/equation SOLELY in order to place oneself BACK INTO IT.

Most people fail in combining these two components.
Some are incapable of removing themselves from Subjective modes of analysis (eg. Phoneutria).
Some people are unable to make judgements and to practice behaviours which effectively place themselves back within Objective models( eg. Iambiguous).
Failing either one of these steps is failing at Philosophy.

Philosophy, as opposed to mental masturbation, does not reject objective reasoning through cowardice, social pressure or arbitrary morals.
Philosophy, as opposed to mental masturbation, does not reject the subjective element of acting in both theory and life based on those acquired rational insights.

Objectivity is incorporated into a Subjectivity, an actual life in the sensual world, through the master key we call Philosophy.

Those who claim their spirit is philosophical in nature, that refuse to Perceive and also to Value, are not Philosophers, but rather are case studies in stunted and incomplete thinking. Somewhere in such a persons psychology exists an unnatural barrier to Looking and Living honestly, either through blinding oneself to reality, or forgetting that reality and Nature surrounds and emcompasses YOU and everything about you.

Therefore REAL Philosophy, not Bonobo circle-jerk mind-games and mind-farts, simply put, is the discipline of Perceiving and Valuing.

2

Humans are sensors that perceive the world within a limited range and with varying degrees of accuracy/precision.
When you have several instruments, and each of them gives you a slightly different reading, you take the measurement to be the average of all readings.
Objectivity can only be the sum and averaging of all subjectivities.
So yes, I agree that objectivity is incorporated into a subjectivity. Objectivity, for all human purposes, is an inter-subjectivity.
As to my inability to remove myself from subjective modes of analysis, citation, please.

3

Not to get too technical, but perceiving and valuing what?

How is this not but one more example of a philosophical “analysis” that revolves almost entirely around either accepting or not accepting the manner in which you define the meaning of the words in the analysis. Words defining and defending other words.

How is this not just another example of someone connecting the dots between their words and a “general description” of the world that we live in?

Sure, there are things that we perceive and and value as we do because [in fact] those perceptions and valuations reflect the world as it really is – as it really is objectively.

And this of course clearly constitutes the preponderance of our perceptions.

But what about the parts where perceptions and valuations are embedded considerably more in the subjective [and often conflicting] assumptions that individual human beings make regarding not the way the world “is”, but the way it “ought to be” instead.

4

2op
It depends on the degree of difference between the mental qualities and their derivative physical values.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188652

If a perception is accurate relative to the measure of say a machine, then it has equal value. This is usually called ‘expertise’ and skill, though because qualities and their derivative physical components are different in nature, there is a range of difference in accuracy.

But that doesn’t mean our perceptions aren’t true, it’s a matter of relative accuracy between connecting but different parties.

5

No, Philosophy is not about valuing things you perceive. Nihilism is a philosophy that is just the opposite.

6

Philosophical analysis no longer revolves around the way you either accept pr deny the meaning of words. It may appear as it was so, but it has become a function of families of groups of similar often indescernible differences

7

Exactly!

8

Simply put? It’s ALSO that discipline but then so is different sciences, psychology - et cetera.

…and then what?

9

Mind games are important as well philosophy of mind precludes games

10

Hi orbie - was that in reference to what I wrote or in general?

11

Hi arc no it was to whomever wrote the paraphrase within yourcontext

12

  1. 'Too technical? You have one technique which is deployed in every interaction, that is not ‘too technical’.

  2. Perceiving and Valuing anything and everything. What is it? How does it relate to me? Perceive - Value. Try it. You might just get a glimpse of yourself.

  3. Words facilitate clear communication between people. You are free to dispute whatever words and definitions I have used. You, as per usual, present no example of what you disagree with and why. Are you suggesting that words should be arbitrary and mean whatever the speaker intends regardless of its accepted definition? Words define phenomena, the objective world, if they are honest. If you are a jackass hiding behind words then you might find shared meanings to be a type of oppression.

  4. How does that sentence not describe everything that has ever been communicated? You literally just described communication. The quality of the description is what make the difference. The more accurate the better.

  5. So therefore one dasein may include a higher degree of accuracy and intelligence when compared to another. Isn’t perceiving the world how it is better than any alternative? Shouldn’t the goal of human intelligence and awareness be to justify itself and become increasingly accurate?

  6. This is your obsession. Your wish is to focus on social, political and moral examples and look only through the prism of total subjectivity. When one idea offers more quality, longevity and utility when compared to another, why are they equal? How can they be? You argue that all things can be rationalized because we all lack a perfected cosmic consciousness (God) and this makes all thing equally permissable/justifiable. The values that provide evidence of their comparative correctness are superior because accurate perception is advantageous and being unaware is detrimental. Perceiving accurately and developing more convincing and objective values is what justifies actions in life, if you aren’t a deliberately idiotic person. Can you provide even one example of where this is not true (without abandoning ones self to luck and fortune)?

13

Okay let’s play a game. Imagine that you are sitting in a room. All at once: You can smell a delicious pie, you can hear a bird chirping loudly and your feet are on fire. Are your actions dictated by an average or by the primacy of one? Think hard.

Let’s play another. I played this with Iambgious: A, B, C and D sit at a table with identical meals. The chef pours poison all over the meals. 3 of them, A, B and C eat it. 1 of them , D, does not. If you were E and in the same predicament, would your objective decision consist of an adding and averaging of subjectivities? Think hard.

Subjectivity : http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393

14

Nice try dude, but there’s not enough information to answer the question.

What day of the week is it and what kind of pie?

15

Actually it is completely independent of that. The relative quality of mind does not dictate the utility of Philosophy, it just influences how well it can be utilized.

Machines are extensions of human sensory capabilities. Regardless, the resultant data needs to be perceived by the mind and valued if it is to be useful.

16

I insist that it is.

Nihilism is just the opposite of Philosophy. I fixed that for you.

17

All of those disciplines you mentioned are extensions of that same philosophical process. Tell me if you disagree.

Lather (Perceive), Rinse (Value) and Repeat (…erm Repeat).

18

As long as the game isn’t ‘Dasein-Politico-Morality’ Roulette, if you catch my drift.

19

To determine the value of philosophy, one must be free from the prejudices of one who recognises only the material needs of man. This is very aptly described in Bertrand Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy. A man who is oblivious of food for the mind, (which is exclusively where the value of philosophy is to be found), will have no interest in philosophy, yet a philosopher has to recognise, if they are truthful, that the study of philosophy has not achieved the positive results as those of other sciences and if it does, the subject then ceases to be philosophy. There is mention here of psychology and this is a good example of what was once part of philosophy, (the study of the human mind) has now become psychology. It seems that questions which have no definite answers form what is called philosophy and from this the value of philosophy is in fact, based largely on uncertainty.

20

All sciences are part of philosophy, one way or another. Perceiving objectively and Valuing subjective are the foundational principles of all intelligent, logical and rational thinking i.e. Philosophy.