Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre

It is nothing to do with philosophy at all.

My (provisional - it is liable to be tweaked at some point) question is "Has the establishment of Autonomous Communites in Spain led to a move from competitive regionalism to co-operative sub-nationalism"

(or something along those lines).
 
Sounds good. Approached from sociological point of view?

salaam.

I am a politics student, (the other half of my degree is philosophy). I am approaching it using a kind of hybrid comparative model.

If I am not honest, I am not even sure myself, right now.

:oops::D
 
I'll never support the idea behind such half/half education systems but that is besides the point ;)

salaam.
 
I think I got a recollection of my posts on the epistemology thread. Have ordened them somewhat in clusters.

Aldebaran said:
There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
The "of" is what people imagine to be knowledge, which in fact is only a self- suggestion, hence doesn't exist outside the mind of the individual.

Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem.
Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.
That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent.

There is no truth possible without knowledge, let alone an "obvious" truth. Would it be obvious everyone would know it.

Belief can't equate " to know" in no matter which sense. They are quite the opposite of eachother.
Belief is not knowledge and can't be knowledge or there would not be the requirement for belief to exist. And since knowledge doesn't exist, only the suggestion thereof, belief is all there is.
Would I have knowledge, I wouldn't need experience (which induces belief) nor belief.

That doesn't exclude that neverthless suggestions of knowledge or aspects thereof can be of use or can be and are used.
People don't need the word "knowledge" to imagine possessment of what it is supposed to mean to those who do use it . Even people who don't know the word "knowledge" will live under the delusion of having what is understood by using it. They believe to have knowledge.
There is no knowledge needed for being a thinking thing... You "are" as often as you think you are.



Have fun :)

salaam.
 
You "are" as often as you think you are.
Shades of the Penrose/Hameroff theory of consciousness.

I think I should repeat the caveat that it is unwise to draw strong conclusions from any area of science, as its interpretations are always open to revision. And (to my mind anyway) biology is more likely to give insights into the nature of consciousness than is physics.

How have we spent so long talking about knowledge, without talking about information?* Is it because we are afraid to achieve real understanding? Perhaps just because we're thinking with steam-age philosophy?

*thus speaks a refugee from the epistemology thread :rolleyes:
 

I don't know about that (and I don't open external links to strange looking sites) and it isn't about consiousness that I'm talking.
Of course you need to be conscious (better said: whatis commonly understood by it) to do conscious thinking, but what I said has no relation to what you suggest.

How have we spent so long talking about knowledge, without talking about information?* Is it because we are afraid to achieve real understanding? Perhaps just because we're thinking with steam-age philosophy?

Information offers belief - or suggestion thereof - to be aquired. This can lead to the experience of suggested understanding. The cumulative result induces suggestion of knowledge.

(what on earth is "steam age" philosophy? I'm not even thinking about philosophy. It is a discipline I never was involved with outside what was normal part of my academic education.)


salaam.
 
I certainly wouldn't knowingly post a dodgy link, Alde! Anyway, as the address shows, it's a University of Arizona site, a very well known and high profile site. It holds a lot of heavy duty information and results of scientific research into a particular theory of consciousness, a determinist theory, I'm told. Anyway, I don't find the theory particularly credible. To my mind, freewill is a essential part of consciousness, and also moral responsibility. I experience myself as having both, and I'm unconvinced by attempts to explain them away.

But one conclusion from the research program suggested by the theory is that consciousness is discontinuous, a rapidly flickering "light" of awareness. Your comment You "are" as often as you think you are. reminded me of that.

For me the interesting thing about information is that one has to recognise it as information before it can offer anything at all. That's a real paradox, and quite an interesting one too (not a contrived semantic paradox masquerading as wisdom -- not saying you delight in those, just that some other folks seem to).

The idea of information was not so important to earlier generations, hence the quip about "steam-age philosophy". :)
 
Back
Top Bottom