Philosophical Exploration

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:31 am

The primary tool in philosophical thought is our ability to define words. But we're not just playing with letters and symbols when we do this, we're creating new concepts and new ways of thinking about things. Language is just a tool that makes this process easier.

The main peculiarity about philosophy is that we're trying to take our concept to their ultimate conclusions by pushing them further and further out into universality. Another way of saying this is that we try to define our concepts so that they encompass everything in the universe. And this characteristic is what makes this forum so subversive.

Let's take a concept like "nurturing" and try to define it philosophically. I would think "nurturing" could be defined as "life promoting", right?

So, is a mother who nurses her newborn baby "nurturing"? Yes, of course, since the baby would die if it weren't fed.

What about a mother with twins who nurses them both? Would she be twice as "nurturing" as the first mother?

There might be people who would say "no" and that the two mothers are equally nurturing because they wouldn't want to denigrate the first mother, but that wouldn't make any logical sense. If nurturing is defined as "life promoting" then it stands to reason that someone who promotes two lives is more "nurturing" than someone who promotes one life. There's no denigrating going on, I'm simply following the logic of the definition I made. If anyone were to see me as denigrating the first mother, that would be something going on in their mind, not mine. I never said that "nurturing" meant "good" or "better", I'm just trying to analyze a concept so I can understand what it is without passing any value judgements on it. It's essential to be able to separate value judgements from logical judgements. It's not possible to think logically without that skill.

So, a mother with three kids is more "nurturing" than a mother with twins. A nurse who saves hundreds of lives is more "nurturing" than a mother. A scientist who discovers the cure for a deadly disease and saves millions of lives is more "nurturing" than a nurse. The Earth is more "nurturing" than a scientist because it gave life to everything on it. The Milky Way Galaxy is more "nurturing" than the Earth. The Universe is more "nurturing" than the Milky Way.

You can see we've gone far beyond the usual things that most people think of as "nurturing", yet we never strayed from the basic concept of "life promoting". We've taken a concept and analyzed it by pushing it to its utmost limits, and that's what philosophical exploration is about. I hope I demonstrated that clearly.

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:03 am

this reminds me of a little movie i saw which starts with a boat on a lake than is magnified sequentially by powers of ten to outer space

so where does a buddha fit into this nurturing

is it a mathematecal function with god as the independent variable and all being nurtured the dependent variables

but then again god is everything including the nurtured so how does that work

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:25 am

sky wrote:this reminds me of a little movie i saw which starts with a boat on a lake than is magnified sequentially by powers of ten to outer space

so where does a buddha fit into this nurturing

is it a mathematecal function with god as the independent variable and all being nurtured the dependent variables

but then again god is everything including the nurtured so how does that work

A Buddha learns to be aware of himself as a dependent variable.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:41 am

You can see we've gone far beyond the usual things that most people think of as "nurturing", yet we never strayed from the basic concept of "life promoting". We've taken a concept and analyzed it by pushing it to its utmost limits, and that's what philosophical exploration is about. I hope I demonstrated that clearly.

You failed to show how an insightful person should respond to the counter-intuitive examples that you raised. Since your example went beyond what is generally considered nurturing, your initial definition is either wrong or incomplete. Defining words properly requires experience with how the word actually is used. Nurturing is an activity performed almost exclusively by animals; when you start seeing galaxies doing it (literally, not metaphorically), you are probably on the wrong track.

The primary tool in philosophical thought is our ability to define words.

Although I agree that defining words is important, I would not consider it the primary tool of philosophy. It is something that anyone who thinks in any capacity has to be able to do, but it is one part of a larger toolset. It is a requirement, but it is not the only requirement. Someone who can define words can just as easily be an idiot savant, madman, scientist, or English professor as a philosopher.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:06 am

So would a full petri dish be more nurturing than a mother?

The organisms in a petri dish can be more plentiful than even triplets, but the number of cells in an individual baby are greater than the number of cellular life-forms in a petri dish. Nevertheless, the life-forms in the petri dish can live more independantly of each other than the cells in a baby.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:46 am

Sky: so where does a buddha fit into this nurturing

Steven: A Buddha learns to be aware of himself as a dependent variable.

Yeah, but to place him in the "nurturing" category you could say that he brings Truth to people or he awakens them to Reality which helps them to survive better since it would make them more conscious of the thing they are trying to compete against.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:01 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
You can see we've gone far beyond the usual things that most people think of as "nurturing", yet we never strayed from the basic concept of "life promoting". We've taken a concept and analyzed it by pushing it to its utmost limits, and that's what philosophical exploration is about. I hope I demonstrated that clearly.
You failed to show how an insightful person should respond to the counter-intuitive examples that you raised. Since your example went beyond what is generally considered nurturing, your initial definition is either wrong or incomplete. Defining words properly requires experience with how the word actually is used. Nurturing is an activity performed almost exclusively by animals; when you start seeing galaxies doing it (literally, not metaphorically), you are probably on the wrong track.

But the thing is that the philosopher is attempting to discover Truth, so breaking away from the thinking of society isn't out of the question. People hardly ever know what they're really talking about, so what would be the point of chaining yourself to their ignorance? Perhaps "nurturing" is totally useless in the search for Truth? I'm not trying to defend it, I'm only trying to understand it.

But let's look at the difference here between the nurturing of a mother and the nurturing of a galaxy with respect to a baby. The mother causes her baby to continue living and if she ceased to exist, the baby would die, or at least be less capable of living. The galaxy is the same...its existence is necessary for the baby to exist and if the galaxy ceased to exist the baby would definitely be dead. So what is the difference? I say they are fundamentally the same.

The primary tool in philosophical thought is our ability to define words.
Although I agree that defining words is important, I would not consider it the primary tool of philosophy. It is something that anyone who thinks in any capacity has to be able to do, but it is one part of a larger toolset. It is a requirement, but it is not the only requirement.

Well, ok.

Someone who can define words can just as easily be an idiot savant, madman, scientist, or English professor as a philosopher.

I guess, but only someone capable of philosophical thought can reach Truth through doing it.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:21 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:So would a full petri dish be more nurturing than a mother?

The organisms in a petri dish can be more plentiful than even triplets, but the number of cells in an individual baby are greater than the number of cellular life-forms in a petri dish. Nevertheless, the life-forms in the petri dish can live more independantly of each other than the cells in a baby.

I guess it would depend on what your goals are, which would inform you on how you should value life, whether sheer quantity of life is more valuable for your definition or whether the complexity of it is or whatever.

I was working on the assumption that Truth is the most valuable thing for philosophy, that's why I took the analysis in the direction I did.

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:15 pm

Matt wrote,

But let's look at the difference here between the nurturing of a mother and the nurturing of a galaxy with respect to a baby.

The galaxy cares less, be it the baby or the mother itself.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:53 pm

It doesn't matter because I didn't include any reference to consciousness in my definition of "nurturing".

If you dispute the utility of my definition, then feel free to use your own definition, but it won't be the one I was talking about, so don't start thinking it was.

It goes back to being able to define your own words. If you can do that, then you'll be able to understand someone else who does.

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:02 pm

I was working on the assumption that Truth is the most valuable thing for philosophy

truth is the most valuable thing period

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:15 pm

sky wrote:
I was working on the assumption that Truth is the most valuable thing for philosophy
truth is the most valuable thing period

Consciousness is more valuable to me, than truth.

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:39 pm

and what is the value of consciousness other than the clear perception of truth

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:36 am

Consciousness without truth is not conscious. How could it be?

sky · Post by **sky** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:40 am

right

so then is truth or consciousness more valuable

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:04 am

I don't think that question makes any sense.

For one thing, there's no such thing as objective values. Every consciousness is free to value whatever it wants (whatever it is caused to value), so a question like "which is more valuable?" only makes sense when put to a specific entity.

Another thing is that, although truth exists without consciousness of it, I don't think it makes any sense to value truth without valuing consciousness of it since Truth is eternal and doesn't need our support in any way. And valuing consciousness without valuing truth is useless because consciousness requires truth since consciousness without being conscious of Reality isn't really conscious. So, I think if you value truth, you necessarily value consciousness and vice versa.

sky · Post by **sky** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:16 am

right

consciousness is necessary to discern truth

but truth does not need to be descerned to be truth

so what i mean by truth is the most important thing is that it is truth is always truth and if we have consciousness we are conscious of the truth

but if our consciousness is unconscious it has absolutely no effect on the truth

we just can't access it

but it still exists

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:58 am

I agree with all that, except for the idea of it being important. Truth isn't important or unimportant in itself. It's not anything.

Every action (including thinking) is done on the basis of valuing one thing over another, because we can only do one thing at a time and therefore we have to choose. But valuing doesn't have any meaning outside of the realm of conscious action where there is no choosing going on.

It's not necessary to value Truth, as can be seen by the fact that hardly anyone places any value on it. That's why I said "Truth is the most valuable thing for philosophy," because not everyone wants to do philosophy.