GENIUS FORUMS

I've just been thinking about the path trod by philosophy over its 2500 years or so and in particular its relationship to contemporary academic and everyday life.

Specialisation and complexification are inherent, systematically, in the process of industrialisation and the human population expanding (both of which are interrelated).

In my mind, the following idea stems from a Robert Solomon lecture but it might be one that has been 'picked up' from another source: That philosophy and psychology diverted at some point in the past, and whilst outside of academia a kind of holistic philosophy will still be engaged in, Academic pursuits now resemble a House of Philosophy, complete with problem children.

Is it a case that overcomplexity has resulted in a dogmatic approach in certain minds (outside of the conversations within the academy) due to their not being 'world enough or time' for most people to engage in all the many disparate elements that could constitute a more holistic approach to philosophy?* If a de-complexifying is necessary to do philosophy (in this holistic sense), what would be discarded and would the result constitute a trans-humanistic science?

It is my understanding that there is a problem here with the practice of 'Analytic Philosophy' in that it may be valid and interesting to the people enclosed within its practice, but it seems there's no macro-level bridge into this from the everyday realms. If I were to compare my own experience in this regard to walking into a building (perhaps the aforementioned House) from a dirty, bustling city street it would be something like this:

After finding, opening (with some difficulty) and walking through what appeared to be a door, I am faced with a semicircle of further doors all adorned with plaques. There is a dusty desk right in front of me at the 'centre' of the semicircle. After a brief decade or so of hesitating, I decide to make my way over to the first door on my left (if I was from the Hebrew tradition that might have been the right hand one, a joke, I apologise). The plaque is covered with what looks like writing but is so small that I cannot make out what is written on it, I peer closer, waiting for my eyes to focus but still nothing is discernible. I try the door and it also takes quite some effort to open it. Once inside I find that I am back outside on the street, confused, I return to the semicircle. I try a different door. Same indiscernible markings, same sticky door. This time, I see a group of suited gentlemen huddled around a small table, a dim desklamp lights them though it is hard to make out any detail since the room is so foggy. I walk closer to them and feel a heaviness descend, first in my brain, then it filters into the rest of my body. It's cold and I forget the street. I look at the gentlemen and think of poker. The men begin talking to me, firstly it is recognisably English but the words hang together in an unfamiliar way. I recognise glimmers of emotion and intonation, but the synthesis of the words takes a long time to generate any meaning. It's like they are all reading from a script, but no written words are visible. After a while, I begin to experience brief moments of clarity in which I comprehend what they are saying, but these are fleeting and I begin to think once more of the streets and working-class martyrdom. Confused, I return to the semicircle.

I am still in this semicircle, confused, wondering which door to walk through next. I have a idea though, and a map appears to me of several rooms arranged in a semicircle except in my map there are no walls between the rooms.

It would be better to leave the house altogether and find Nature elsewhere. Go to a paddock and look at the stars. You don't need to go through all those rooms.

Contempory philosophy is philosophy for autistics.

-

Interesting, thanks for the response. I was thinking about a field (or perhaps even a wrecking ball!) whilst writing the end of that last post...

I'm intrigued by the idea of philosophy for autistics, I've done a lot of research into Autism and Aspergers Syndrome and am fascinated by what appears to be the 'spectrum' nature of all human conditions. It's perhaps not the point you were making about contemporary philosophy but I think there is truth in that idea as opposed to the atomic view of reality most people hold.

Which philosophies get discussed here? Old-fashioned or contemporary?

CultOfByron wrote:Interesting, thanks for the response. I was thinking about a field (or perhaps even a wrecking ball!) whilst writing the end of that last post...

A wrecking ball sounds good to me. Contempory philosophy might have some spin-off benefits as far as formal logic, set theory, semantic analysis, etc, is concerned, but it is completely useless if you want to understand what is fundamentally true about life.

I'm intrigued by the idea of philosophy for autistics, I've done a lot of research into Autism and Aspergers Syndrome and am fascinated by what appears to be the 'spectrum' nature of all human conditions. It's perhaps not the point you were making about contemporary philosophy but I think there is truth in that idea as opposed to the atomic view of reality most people hold.

Can you expand on this?

-

1otherS wrote:Which philosophies get discussed here? Old-fashioned or contemporary?

Timeless.

-

That's the stuff I'm looking for. I hope to witness many creative outbursts around here...

David Quinn wrote:

CultOfByron wrote:I'm intrigued by the idea of philosophy for autistics, I've done a lot of research into Autism and Aspergers Syndrome and am fascinated by what appears to be the 'spectrum' nature of all human conditions. It's perhaps not the point you were making about contemporary philosophy but I think there is truth in that idea as opposed to the atomic view of reality most people hold.

Can you expand on this?

-

I'll surely try!

Alot of the debate around Autism, Aspergers and to a certain extent ADD seems to be definitional. Boundaries are constantly in ebb and flow and discourse seems to suggest either a framing of Autistic Spectrum Disorders as 'diseases to be cured' or 'conditions' and it's the latter definition that intrigues me. Throughout my research I was always thinking along the lines of: "Where's the threshold exactly? At what point can someone be diagnosed as having an ASD or not." and it occured to me that the defining threshold is arbitrary, at a point where the effects are detrimental to quality of life.

Common sense or obvious you might say, but when you look at it from another way and apply the intuition to other 'conditions' of human experience; in a mundane sense at what point can someone be said to 'have' a cold, as if the states of 'having' and 'not having' are distinct and atomic? This idea is contained within the everyday language used to describe the process of becoming ill. With Autism, and I think this will be of some interest, there are theories that say (I'm thinking of Russell Berkely here) that the Autistic brain is a sort of extreme male brain, but I digress. The point is that when you apply this idea of a 'spectrum nature'* to all human conditions, I believe it holds. The consequences of this are perhaps a little disturbing with regard to pathological behaviour and ideas of 'normality' but also, I think, optimistic with regard to ideas of consciousness and how someone may become 'more enlightened'.

*I've deliberately avoided the term 'spectral nature' which although might be grammatically correct has supernatural overtones which I'm not happy with!

Okay, I'm with you now.

CultOfByron wrote:Alot of the debate around Autism, Aspergers and to a certain extent ADD seems to be definitional. Boundaries are constantly in ebb and flow and discourse seems to suggest either a framing of Autistic Spectrum Disorders as 'diseases to be cured' or 'conditions' and it's the latter definition that intrigues me. Throughout my research I was always thinking along the lines of: "Where's the threshold exactly? At what point can someone be diagnosed as having an ASD or not." and it occured to me that the defining threshold is arbitrary, at a point where the effects are detrimental to quality of life.

Common sense or obvious you might say, but when you look at it from another way and apply the intuition to other 'conditions' of human experience; in a mundane sense at what point can someone be said to 'have' a cold, as if the states of 'having' and 'not having' are distinct and atomic?

Yes, it all boils down to human categories being superimposed on the seamlessness of Nature. These categories have their uses, but they are still our creations which have been arbitarily selected to suit our purposes.

For example, most people could easily be described as having Asperger's Syndrome to some degree. Most people are obsessive and blinkered about certain things to the detriment of the rest of their development and find it difficult to understand logical arguments which counter their obsession. These are classic Asperger traits. But because it is normal behaviour, it isn't considered an illness. Society narrows the definition of Asperger's to include only the more extreme cases, but it could just as easily broaden it if it wanted to.

This relates to the deeper truth that things - all things, without exception - only exist by way of definition.

This idea is contained within the everyday language used to describe the process of becoming ill. With Autism, and I think this will be of some interest, there are theories that say (I'm thinking of Russell Berkely here) that the Autistic brain is a sort of extreme male brain, but I digress.

I don't consider autistic people to be very masculine, as they have very little control over their condition or indeed their lifestyle. Although they can be extremely unemotional and logical, they don't have the ability to utilize these traits to overcome their own fears and ignorance. They don't have the ability to become free. They are a slave to their condition.

-

David Quinn wrote:Contemporary philosophy is philosophy for autistics.

Because it's too logically oriented? I always wanted to know the meaning of this phrase: "don't mistake the finger for the moon". Is this something that happens with abstract thinkers? Secondly, observation without thought is only observation - nothing is understood in the moment unless you create an explanation for the thing being observed (do you know what I mean?). I think this is why a person can get trapped into spending too much time in his head while their thinking about reality.

there are theories that say (I'm thinking of Russell Berkely here) that the Autistic brain is a sort of extreme male brain

How so? Some ASD's (savants) are human calculator's, but these same people find it too difficult to tie their own shoes.

David Quinn wrote:This relates to the deeper truth that things - all things, without exception - only exist by way of definition.

Could you please define this word: "definition" - as you've used it in the above statement.