To often, people seem to think they need a philosophy to decide what to eat or what to believe. That philosophy has been worked out, the philosophy of determining truth based on empiricism. I don’t need a “view” on life until you ask me about love, or happiness. Even how to approach other living creatures, it’s mostly science, once I’ve figured out that caring for them is related to happiness.
1 Like
She is no longer the media darling after she has come out to support palestine
Though, isn’t there a step before that?
As in getting to know oneself (as in who we are) and coming to terms with our place in the world. Our approach to other living creatures starts with our own attitude, which leads how we interact with, . . .
Science does make the best teacher, regarding that material natural world we are embedded within. Science provides the proverbial blocks of knowledge, that we personally take and process according to our particular internal filters, to help produce our “approach to other living creatures and landscapes”.
How do you know what you are without the methods we call “science”?
Is your body not part of the material world?
Then it gets a little tricker,
Your living material body, produces your meta-physical thoughts.
Sort of like our global heat and moisture distribution engine, in rough outlines it’s not that complicated. Only when zooming in on the details does it get impossibly complex.
Yes. I don’t have an opinion about it. I didn’t first develop thoughts on what my body is, then study the material world, then decide what I am. I came to be in this world and it told me I couldn’t fly, and I couldn’t breathe underwater. My elders told me how to stay warm, how my heart pumped blood, and nurture my brain. I was taught more than what things are, i learned how to discover more. My opinion on these things does not change them.
Looked at from a Physical Reality ~ Human Mind/thoughts divide perspective.
The “view” is how each of use processes* the building blocks of “facts” that scientists have been constructing and refining, within our individual meta-physical mind.
(and we process it through our individual unique mental filters, that were created by birth, environment, experiences, knowledge, etc )
The “facts” is our best objective measurement & appraisal (science).
The “view” is what is going on inside of each of our minds.
Thus the divide we ought be more aware of.
Does that make sense?
That’s why I think the title to this thread is an example of the sort of map v. territory confusion that I’ve been trying to bring attention to.
I think you are sowing confusion.
The OP is about the view OF the things listed, but about your views on life. Your philosophy of how to be does not have an effect on how you got here, how you arrived on this physical world. It’s that pre-existing universe that shaped you.
The defintion she is using is
a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.
“strong political views”
Your attitude about climate doesn’t change it, your use of fossil fuels does.
You mean this?
I’ve reread it many times, and I think it falls under the heading of “our relationship with the knowledge we possess.”
But, once one incorporates those facts into an understanding of our biological body and the fact of your own being, being a feature of all that.
That is, the facts become part of oneself and our understanding of ourselves, at least that’s how it is for me.
and not the way I read her where its out there somewhere separate to her.
Being part of the world and having a view on climate change are two different things. You are adding on that she is seperating them as if they are objects on a table. They aren’t seperate things on a table to begin with, so I don’t know why you are doing that.
Right.
That’s where her last sentence takes me.
Science has historically been all about looking at things in isolation to understand them better. The holistic interwoven perspective hasn’t gained footing until the past few decades.
Our ability to refuse to look at the flip side, or at the cascading consequences of our actions, is all about categorizing.
You are impossible. Later on
I’m sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you misunderstand what I was trying to get across. Patrick Stinson may help clear it up, in this regard.
It’s an interesting read and finishes with this:
“The world has problems, but universities have departments” (Brewer, 1999, p. 328, as cited in Cronin, 2008). All propose the solution of philosophy’s return as a binding force in the application of science to human life. “Philosophers need to get out of the study, and into the field,” Frodeman writes, (2013, p. 1918), and begin to combine the fruits of analytical science for the good of human life. Wilson believes that the thinkers of the enlightenment “got it mostly right the first time” assuming a “unity of knowledge” (Wilson, 1999, p. kpp 20) as in Sir Francis Bacon utopian Solomon’s House, a loom weaving together the threads of knowledge contributed by different scholars of different problems (Pihlaja, 2012).
That early Enlightenment ideal resulted in an explosion of curiosity about the natural world that became “the West’s greatest contribution to civilization” (Wilson, 1999, p. kpp 29). The result of an effected synthesis could be an evolutionary leap for science’s ability to handle the pressing problems of today. If reductionism implies atomism, then the above may appear a case for its opposite, holism. But holism in itself, which holds the entire problem in view providing the opportunity for properties of the whole not evident in the parts to emerge, is still a branch too far from the trunk (Bunge, 2003).
Barring claims of omniscience from sages of the ancient past, no human possesses nor can make use of all there is to know of the natural world. And yet, progress in all forms can be well informed by the thoughtful coordination of diverse minds and abilities. Analysis and synthesis have their places, and yet some kind of integration is required. A way of thinking is needed that can simultaneously account for the part as well as the whole. This way of thinking must both move freely between synthesis of analysis, and possibly go beyond synthesis and analysis.
.
.
,
Perhaps you are talking about what you want to talk about and ignoring what I’m saying. I understand you completely. I understand you are on a different topic.