Getting to the point

[Matt Gregory]

My opinion is that the best way to proceed in philosophy (or any intellectual endeavor, really) is to begin by making your first objective to be to root out and deeply understand the fundamental principle of the field. Philosophy can't be confined to an academic "field", but I'll go with that word.

One problem is that you can't arrive at a fundamental principle in one go. You need to break down the task of enlightenment into smaller problems and root out the fundamental principle in each one of those. They will all point to a principle more fundamental than those, and so you keep moving towards a unifying idea that you can't actually conceive of, but you know in the back of your mind that it's there. Reason will direct you there. The path it goes down always leads in that direction.

Even when you arrive there and the idea dawns on you, it may not be emotionally satisfying. It may have come too easily. Make an expert or a guru told you about it and trivialized it in your mind. Maybe I'm trivializing these ideas by talking about them in such a short format. I've been thinking about these things for years, so they have a lot of meaning to me, but maybe they have none to you.

Another thing is that what you perceive to be fundamental depends largely on what you value. It's an interesting exercise to look at what you think is fundamental in some situation and then look at what you value about that situation, look at how you feel about it. Try to sort it out. It's very useful in figuring out what you really want in life.

[jufa]

For myself I find the whole problem of subjective profiling philosophy, as have been attempted here, is that it does not lend itself to generalisation because philosphy is an infinite on going experience of Itself. Self is, within the man, invisible thoughts and material matters of man's interpreted conclusions of inherited matters of thought. Philosophy, as life, doesn't care whether the minds of the individual conscious awareness they has produced understand anything about them humanly or not, for they has one purpose, and one purpose only, to be about the business of themselves.

Life, as philosophy is everywhere man can consciously be aware of. Wherever ones conscious mind has them, at this very moment, they are there because of their philosophy of life. Life is Consciousness. Consciousness is the source, energy, animation, mind, and underlining Essence of all that is of any and all thoughts, whether they be distant, or near, or imaginary, or in the form of solid matter. Life is God, and this truth assures all thoughts and intent of every man, woman, boy and girl are naked at all times within life of ones philophy and cannot hide behind the face of Jesus, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, religion, beliefs, ignorance, nor any kind of intellectual interpreted human teaching.
_________________
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - Jufa

[Jehu]

My opinion is that the best way to proceed in philosophy (or any intellectual endeavor, really) is to begin by making your first objective to be to root out and deeply understand the fundamental principle of the field. Philosophy can't be confined to an academic "field", but I'll go with that word.

One problem is that you can't arrive at a fundamental principle in one go. You need to break down the task of enlightenment into smaller problems and root out the fundamental principle in each one of those. They will all point to a principle more fundamental than those, and so you keep moving towards a unifying idea that you can't actually conceive of, but you know in the back of your mind that it's there. Reason will direct you there.

If it is one’s intention to reason one's way to the truth, the attainment of which is the ultimate aim of philosophy, does it not make sense to begin with the fundamental principle of reason? And if one cannot reason without the use of a language, does it not follow that we should look to language for that fundamental principle.

[Matt Gregory]

For myself I find the whole problem of subjective profiling philosophy, as have been attempted here, is that it does not lend itself to generalisation because philosphy is an infinite on going experience of Itself. Self is, within the man, invisible thoughts and material matters of man's interpreted conclusions of inherited matters of thought. Philosophy, as life, doesn't care whether the minds of the individual conscious awareness they has produced understand anything about them humanly or not, for they has one purpose, and one purpose only, to be about the business of themselves.

Life, as philosophy is everywhere man can consciously be aware of. Wherever ones conscious mind has them, at this very moment, they are there because of their philosophy of life. Life is Consciousness. Consciousness is the source, energy, animation, mind, and underlining Essence of all that is of any and all thoughts, whether they be distant, or near, or imaginary, or in the form of solid matter. Life is God, and this truth assures all thoughts and intent of every man, woman, boy and girl are naked at all times within life of ones philophy and cannot hide behind the face of Jesus, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, religion, beliefs, ignorance, nor any kind of intellectual interpreted human teaching.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Sorry! What do you mean by "profiling"?

[Matt Gregory]

My opinion is that the best way to proceed in philosophy (or any intellectual endeavor, really) is to begin by making your first objective to be to root out and deeply understand the fundamental principle of the field. Philosophy can't be confined to an academic "field", but I'll go with that word.

One problem is that you can't arrive at a fundamental principle in one go. You need to break down the task of enlightenment into smaller problems and root out the fundamental principle in each one of those. They will all point to a principle more fundamental than those, and so you keep moving towards a unifying idea that you can't actually conceive of, but you know in the back of your mind that it's there. Reason will direct you there.

If it is one’s intention to reason one's way to the truth, the attainment of which is the ultimate aim of philosophy, does it not make sense to begin with the fundamental principle of reason? And if one cannot reason without the use of a language, does it not follow that we should look to language for that fundamental principle.

I don't think there's a set answer that would work for everyone. Everyone is at a different stage of development and each one of us needs to develop according to our own personalities, experiences, mental characteristics, and so forth. So I think it's a really personal decision as to what to tackle next.

[jufa]

Philosophy can't be confined to an academic "field", but I'll go with that word.

This is profiling.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Jehu]

I don't think there's a set answer that would work for everyone. Everyone is at a different stage of development and each one of us needs to develop according to our own personalities, experiences, mental characteristics, and so forth. So I think it's a really personal decision as to what to tackle next.

Yes, well I am not concerned with “what to tackle next”, but with where to begin.

If we are to have any hope of effectively communicating our thoughts on the subject of philosophy-wherever it is within that field that we may decide to begin, we must follow certain conventionally prescribed rules of inference, for the symbols that we use to communicate our thoughts, whether those symbols they be written or verbal, requires that we have some means of attributing the appropriate meaning to them. Consequently, the principles that underlie the effective communication of our thoughts must be fully understood prior to any philosophical enquiry, else we can never be certain that what we are saying is properly understood.

Would you not agree?

[Matt Gregory]

Philosophy can't be confined to an academic "field", but I'll go with that word.

This is profiling.

Eh? You mean describing something?

[Matt Gregory]

I don't think there's a set answer that would work for everyone. Everyone is at a different stage of development and each one of us needs to develop according to our own personalities, experiences, mental characteristics, and so forth. So I think it's a really personal decision as to what to tackle next.

Yes, well I am not concerned with “what to tackle next”, but with where to begin.

If we are to have any hope of effectively communicating our thoughts on the subject of philosophy-wherever it is within that field that we may decide to begin, we must follow certain conventionally prescribed rules of inference, for the symbols that we use to communicate our thoughts, whether those symbols they be written or verbal, requires that we have some means of attributing the appropriate meaning to them. Consequently, the principles that underlie the effective communication of our thoughts must be fully understood prior to any philosophical enquiry, else we can never be certain that what we are saying is properly understood.

Would you not agree?

Nah, I don't think all that is necessary. The problem of communicating philosophical ideas isn't very often verbal, it's just resistance to different ideas by those with less understanding or perhaps greater understanding. If you're trying to communicate something really complicated and failing, then you're probably not communicating anything useful to the person anyway.

[jufa]

Philosophy can't be confined to an academic "field", but I'll go with that word.

This is profiling.

Eh? You mean describing something?

Isn't that what you have done in your profile of you?

[Jehu]

I don't think there's a set answer that would work for everyone. Everyone is at a different stage of development and each one of us needs to develop according to our own personalities, experiences, mental characteristics, and so forth. So I think it's a really personal decision as to what to tackle next.

Yes, well I am not concerned with “what to tackle next”, but with where to begin.

If we are to have any hope of effectively communicating our thoughts on the subject of philosophy-wherever it is within that field that we may decide to begin, we must follow certain conventionally prescribed rules of inference, for the symbols that we use to communicate our thoughts, whether those symbols they be written or verbal, requires that we have some means of attributing the appropriate meaning to them. Consequently, the principles that underlie the effective communication of our thoughts must be fully understood prior to any philosophical enquiry, else we can never be certain that what we are saying is properly understood.

Would you not agree?

Nah, I don't think all that is necessary. The problem of communicating philosophical ideas isn't very often verbal, it's just resistance to different ideas by those with less understanding or perhaps greater understanding. If you're trying to communicate something really complicated and failing, then you're probably not communicating anything useful to the person anyway.

I see, so if a thing is difficult to communicate, then it follows that it is of little value, and should be simply be discounted?

Is that you position?