the omittance of spirituality is 1 right off the top of my headWhat are some flaws of objective philosophy?
The biggest flaw is the objectivity itself. Its upside down. the more you learn about philosophy, the more self doubt you have. But that self doubt is still arrogance. If you respond, I don't know anything, people will say, how do you know that? You have so much knowledge built up, but you are a vessle of doubt. Everything becomes argueable, and you can't really make up your mind. Thats a big problem, especially in a country where argueing is a giant part of our culture.
its almost like, after objecting an idea, you have to then object your objection. Then so on, unto infinity!!! See what I mean! ahhgWhat are some flaws of objective philosophy?
Off the top of my head here's another flaw: According to evolution, emotions, the right kind at least, increased an organisms chances for survival (species survival). Objective philosophy tends to treat the emotions objectively--or not at all.
Objective philosophy is a concept or idea free of being created by the mind. It is discovered whole and in toto
However, everything that is an object is created by a mind.
You nailed it.
And Socrates would agree with you, since his advice: Know Thyself is 100 percent spiritual, since the real Self is the ';Great I Am,'; and is without any question the spiritual path. More on know thyself in my bio.... in western terms.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Philosophy saying how something may not be true could be probably true to reduce the need for universal premis?
I remember reading about something like this but now I can't find it in my text book. There was someone or some specific philosophy that said: an idea or thought may not be a concrete, universal truth but that doesn't mean it isn't probably true. This solves the problem of trying to find universal premises. Forgot who/what it was...help please?Philosophy saying how something may not be true could be probably true to reduce the need for universal premis?
You are referring to problems of logic. In years past there were two forms of logic (deductive and inductive). These were first formalize in the West by Aristotle and in the East by Buddha with Buddha's work coming first (in fact, Aristotle may have used some of Buddha's ideas).
In deductive logic, if the premises are true then the conclusion has to be valid. Deductive logic goes from the general to the specific:
Animals walk and breathe
I walk and breathe
Therefore I am an animal
Inductive logic goes from the specific to the general and thus may not be 100% true.
Since the advent of computers there has come a third form of logic called ';fuzzy'; logic in which the various possibilities are found and the user has to pick the correct one. An example of this may be seen when writing a paragraph using Word and you misspell something. It will tell you the various possibilities for the correct spelling.
You are referring to problems of logic. In years past there were two forms of logic (deductive and inductive). These were first formalize in the West by Aristotle and in the East by Buddha with Buddha's work coming first (in fact, Aristotle may have used some of Buddha's ideas).
In deductive logic, if the premises are true then the conclusion has to be valid. Deductive logic goes from the general to the specific:
Animals walk and breathe
I walk and breathe
Therefore I am an animal
Inductive logic goes from the specific to the general and thus may not be 100% true.
Since the advent of computers there has come a third form of logic called ';fuzzy'; logic in which the various possibilities are found and the user has to pick the correct one. An example of this may be seen when writing a paragraph using Word and you misspell something. It will tell you the various possibilities for the correct spelling.
Why do people still insist on claiming JKD is a style not a philosophy?
seriously,
if you are a martial artist it is my opinion that you MUST must follow the JKD philosophy, meaning in short:
';use what works FOR YOU regardless of what style it comes from';
Imo if you are a serious student of the martial arts and you found a way to make a fade away jump shot work for you in a fight then why the hell shouldn't you use it?
maybe I'm being extreme, but shouldn't ALL martial artists study JKD which is just basically the art of using whatever the hell works for you?
I understand that if you are new to martial arts and just learning and don't really know then you probably don't have the background to start experimenting with what works before you have a grasp of some basics- but once you have some experience under your belt why the hell wouldn't you use something that works for you.Why do people still insist on claiming JKD is a style not a philosophy?
The idea of free-flowing movements is not specific to Jeet Kune Do. Bruce Lee was not, and is not, the only person to advocate free-flowing movements and switching between one method/style and the next based on the situation, and modifying and adapting techniques to make them your own. I have to modify many of my jujutsu techniques based on my abilities and what works for me (short guy, short arms). Hell, the basis of aikijutsu and Judo is that you have to take what the opponent is giving you, so you have to be free-flowing constantly. But while Lee did promote natural movements and actions, he also said they should be done in a learned way. Like throwing an effective kick instead of striking in some crap, inefficient way.
Also, Bruce Lee taught Jeet Kune Do as a martial arts system in addition to its ideology. I don't know off the top of my head, but stuff like combinations and trapping are stressed in Jeet Kune Do, and use of the ';four ranges of combat';. In this way, Jeet Kune Do can be referred to as a style as well.Why do people still insist on claiming JKD is a style not a philosophy?
could it be because even though bruce said that it wasn't and the book says it isn't, linda and shannon are now claiming it is so that they can make money off the name?
Hi there
I do agree that it's more of a philosophy that should be applied to all. But i also think that the art that was taught by Bruce was a compilation of all his best stuff. You could argue that what is taught today maybe a very watered down version of the original concept with new instructors throwing in their own stuff for good measure. That doesn't make it the authentic art that Bruce taught. Or does it? You see this again all depends on who you train with and why you should choose your instructors with care. There may well be someone out there that has had more exposure to the source. Like his original students for example. In the end who are we to judge.
Once you learn everything written down you tend to stop learning. Better to train for the feeling this is something that comes with experience.
Best wishes
idai
You are 100% correct
As a teenager we would get together and share techniques
with each other,picking and choosing what worked well and felt natural.
I think it's due to some instructors who want to jump on the JKD bandwagon and use the Bruce Lee myth to promote their school. Bruce himself has stated clearly in an interview that he regretted giving it a name since he didn't want anyone to go around using JKD as a promotional tool for their schools which is what happens nowadays when someone claims to teach JKD, they deliberately blur the distinction between philosophy and style to make people think JKD is a specific style and since JKD can be applied to any style, they basically have a free pass to claim anything they want since it's a debatable subject. It doesn't help that most people's source of knowledge about Bruce Lee and JKD are his movies which were merely for theatrics and designed to promote the martial arts in general to the public and not JKD, this adds to the confusion in general about what JKD really is.
The book ';The Tao of Jeet Kune Do'; on the other hand does show us what JKD is all about when applied to Bruce's way of fighting. But it must be kept in this context, that it is customized for Bruce Lee's gung fu(or Jun Fan gung fu as he called it), it would look different when applied to someone else like Dan Inosanto for example, because he does apply JKD principles in his training but as applied to Filipino Martial arts which was his focus of training at that time after Bruce passed away. When people read the Tao of JKD out of context and don't regard it as merely a guiding principle for training, they assume that this is how JKD should look like, that is when they mistakenly conclude that the techniques illustrated in the book is the gospel truth of the JKD style. An apt analogy would be when people look at a painting of Vermeer. Now to those who don't know his works, he liked to experiment with the concept of light and shade and his paintings are of figures and scenes that depict the different effects of light and shadows from different directions and intensity. To those who don't know this, they just see a painting of a man flirting with a girl (';Girl with a wineglass';) or a soldier flirting with a lady(';Officer and a Laughing Girl';) or a girl alone in the dark(';Girl with a Pearl Earring';) and conclude that Vermeer's art is about Girls, when in fact, the way the light is reflected in the room with the two couples and on the girl's face is Vermeer's true theme in his paintings.
Dang! I can't believe I just combined something about Bruce Lee and Johannes Vermeer all in one post! I guess those sleep inducing lectures in my college fine arts class was pretty useful afterall : P
You can say yes its a Style but Yes its a Philosophy, Its an Art. Whatever you make of it thats what it is. Its not this way or that way its just a Way. Well, I understand what your saying BUT, you can learn any Martial Art and make it your own Mr. Lee wasn't saying that Just his Art you can turn it into your own, he is saying take what you can, and make Everything your own. Not like some Karate schools they say your foot MUST be right HERE for this to work and then you go to other schools and they say you MUST have it THERE to work. Bruce Lee is saying you must learn the basics then make it work for you and your body. Then that way there is no ';system'; and no ';set movements.'; You learn and let the Art takes its path in your body make the Art your own.
correct again
a+
Its somewhat a style in that there are certain stances and moves in the book Tao of Jeet Kune Do. The main idea of the art is a philosophy though.
And yes all people should study Jeet Kune Do after their cup is filled.
I want a serous answer to this not an insult. If I go to Jersey and study JKD are they going to teach something different then here in Wyoming. I mean its all about what is applicable right? So being an MMA fighter and a green belt in Tae Kwon Do a student of judo and various sword fighting styles makes me a JKD guy. Does JKD have belts. if it has belts then it a style. if it has a unified teaching system that it is supposed to fallow then it is a style. If I follow my own path but never take JKD and am not a JKD because of it then it is a stylebest myspace
if you are a martial artist it is my opinion that you MUST must follow the JKD philosophy, meaning in short:
';use what works FOR YOU regardless of what style it comes from';
Imo if you are a serious student of the martial arts and you found a way to make a fade away jump shot work for you in a fight then why the hell shouldn't you use it?
maybe I'm being extreme, but shouldn't ALL martial artists study JKD which is just basically the art of using whatever the hell works for you?
I understand that if you are new to martial arts and just learning and don't really know then you probably don't have the background to start experimenting with what works before you have a grasp of some basics- but once you have some experience under your belt why the hell wouldn't you use something that works for you.Why do people still insist on claiming JKD is a style not a philosophy?
The idea of free-flowing movements is not specific to Jeet Kune Do. Bruce Lee was not, and is not, the only person to advocate free-flowing movements and switching between one method/style and the next based on the situation, and modifying and adapting techniques to make them your own. I have to modify many of my jujutsu techniques based on my abilities and what works for me (short guy, short arms). Hell, the basis of aikijutsu and Judo is that you have to take what the opponent is giving you, so you have to be free-flowing constantly. But while Lee did promote natural movements and actions, he also said they should be done in a learned way. Like throwing an effective kick instead of striking in some crap, inefficient way.
Also, Bruce Lee taught Jeet Kune Do as a martial arts system in addition to its ideology. I don't know off the top of my head, but stuff like combinations and trapping are stressed in Jeet Kune Do, and use of the ';four ranges of combat';. In this way, Jeet Kune Do can be referred to as a style as well.Why do people still insist on claiming JKD is a style not a philosophy?
could it be because even though bruce said that it wasn't and the book says it isn't, linda and shannon are now claiming it is so that they can make money off the name?
Hi there
I do agree that it's more of a philosophy that should be applied to all. But i also think that the art that was taught by Bruce was a compilation of all his best stuff. You could argue that what is taught today maybe a very watered down version of the original concept with new instructors throwing in their own stuff for good measure. That doesn't make it the authentic art that Bruce taught. Or does it? You see this again all depends on who you train with and why you should choose your instructors with care. There may well be someone out there that has had more exposure to the source. Like his original students for example. In the end who are we to judge.
Once you learn everything written down you tend to stop learning. Better to train for the feeling this is something that comes with experience.
Best wishes
idai
You are 100% correct
As a teenager we would get together and share techniques
with each other,picking and choosing what worked well and felt natural.
I think it's due to some instructors who want to jump on the JKD bandwagon and use the Bruce Lee myth to promote their school. Bruce himself has stated clearly in an interview that he regretted giving it a name since he didn't want anyone to go around using JKD as a promotional tool for their schools which is what happens nowadays when someone claims to teach JKD, they deliberately blur the distinction between philosophy and style to make people think JKD is a specific style and since JKD can be applied to any style, they basically have a free pass to claim anything they want since it's a debatable subject. It doesn't help that most people's source of knowledge about Bruce Lee and JKD are his movies which were merely for theatrics and designed to promote the martial arts in general to the public and not JKD, this adds to the confusion in general about what JKD really is.
The book ';The Tao of Jeet Kune Do'; on the other hand does show us what JKD is all about when applied to Bruce's way of fighting. But it must be kept in this context, that it is customized for Bruce Lee's gung fu(or Jun Fan gung fu as he called it), it would look different when applied to someone else like Dan Inosanto for example, because he does apply JKD principles in his training but as applied to Filipino Martial arts which was his focus of training at that time after Bruce passed away. When people read the Tao of JKD out of context and don't regard it as merely a guiding principle for training, they assume that this is how JKD should look like, that is when they mistakenly conclude that the techniques illustrated in the book is the gospel truth of the JKD style. An apt analogy would be when people look at a painting of Vermeer. Now to those who don't know his works, he liked to experiment with the concept of light and shade and his paintings are of figures and scenes that depict the different effects of light and shadows from different directions and intensity. To those who don't know this, they just see a painting of a man flirting with a girl (';Girl with a wineglass';) or a soldier flirting with a lady(';Officer and a Laughing Girl';) or a girl alone in the dark(';Girl with a Pearl Earring';) and conclude that Vermeer's art is about Girls, when in fact, the way the light is reflected in the room with the two couples and on the girl's face is Vermeer's true theme in his paintings.
Dang! I can't believe I just combined something about Bruce Lee and Johannes Vermeer all in one post! I guess those sleep inducing lectures in my college fine arts class was pretty useful afterall : P
You can say yes its a Style but Yes its a Philosophy, Its an Art. Whatever you make of it thats what it is. Its not this way or that way its just a Way. Well, I understand what your saying BUT, you can learn any Martial Art and make it your own Mr. Lee wasn't saying that Just his Art you can turn it into your own, he is saying take what you can, and make Everything your own. Not like some Karate schools they say your foot MUST be right HERE for this to work and then you go to other schools and they say you MUST have it THERE to work. Bruce Lee is saying you must learn the basics then make it work for you and your body. Then that way there is no ';system'; and no ';set movements.'; You learn and let the Art takes its path in your body make the Art your own.
correct again
a+
Its somewhat a style in that there are certain stances and moves in the book Tao of Jeet Kune Do. The main idea of the art is a philosophy though.
And yes all people should study Jeet Kune Do after their cup is filled.
I want a serous answer to this not an insult. If I go to Jersey and study JKD are they going to teach something different then here in Wyoming. I mean its all about what is applicable right? So being an MMA fighter and a green belt in Tae Kwon Do a student of judo and various sword fighting styles makes me a JKD guy. Does JKD have belts. if it has belts then it a style. if it has a unified teaching system that it is supposed to fallow then it is a style. If I follow my own path but never take JKD and am not a JKD because of it then it is a style
Are there any careers in epistemology/philosophy beyond writing books?
I've been thinking about where I want to take my life recently, and I've realized that all that really interests me at the moment is epistemology/philosophy, in particular Existential Nihilism, Atheism, Agnosticism, and Solpsism. In this day and age, is there any way for me to make a living in this way beyond something involving literature?Are there any careers in epistemology/philosophy beyond writing books?
Teaching would be one option. Aside from that, there aren't a whole lot of job opportunities related to epistemology. It is probably one of the more academic branches of philosophy, a field which today is itself pretty academic. Jobs related to some of the more practical branches of philosophy, like ethics and social and political philosophy are around. If you want to be a philosopher and do something other than teach or write books and pray that they get published, you'll probably have to find a particular subject that you can work on. I'm studying ethics and international development right now, for example. Academic work is one possibility, but my studies should also translate into work with NGO's and more ';practical'; applications.Are there any careers in epistemology/philosophy beyond writing books?
I am you and what I see is me.
Teaching would be one option. Aside from that, there aren't a whole lot of job opportunities related to epistemology. It is probably one of the more academic branches of philosophy, a field which today is itself pretty academic. Jobs related to some of the more practical branches of philosophy, like ethics and social and political philosophy are around. If you want to be a philosopher and do something other than teach or write books and pray that they get published, you'll probably have to find a particular subject that you can work on. I'm studying ethics and international development right now, for example. Academic work is one possibility, but my studies should also translate into work with NGO's and more ';practical'; applications.Are there any careers in epistemology/philosophy beyond writing books?
I am you and what I see is me.
If there is no money in philosophy and people still do it, what does this prove?
It proves that there are people who wish to enrich their minds instead of their bank accounts.
';A fool and his money are soon parted';.If there is no money in philosophy and people still do it, what does this prove?
It is an ego pay off, I think!If there is no money in philosophy and people still do it, what does this prove?
It proves you just can't make a living in poetry.
Actually, I think they do it so that they can help others to learn to think. Philosophy is not a end in itself, but a means to an end. Not to teach you what to think, but how to think. To some degree, Philosophy makes one a bit of a skeptic. It helps you see that the world is gray, rather than black and white.
It simply prooves that Philosophy is Philosoophy, intrinsic, and not instrumental.
Philosophy is that inescapable development of mind, no matter money. prison or not. But it is not simply acquired, it is a gifr from nature, born with one, like the abillity to sing or draw.
It proves that one should not measure success in terms of money.
PHILOSOPHY MEANS LOVE OF TRUTH AND SO I GUESS THAT IS WHY THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY LOVE TRUTH AND I WISH OUR CONGRESS LOVED TRUTH BUT IT IS THE OPPOSITE.
It proves that people do things for reasons other than filthy lucre.
';A fool and his money are soon parted';.If there is no money in philosophy and people still do it, what does this prove?
It is an ego pay off, I think!If there is no money in philosophy and people still do it, what does this prove?
It proves you just can't make a living in poetry.
Actually, I think they do it so that they can help others to learn to think. Philosophy is not a end in itself, but a means to an end. Not to teach you what to think, but how to think. To some degree, Philosophy makes one a bit of a skeptic. It helps you see that the world is gray, rather than black and white.
It simply prooves that Philosophy is Philosoophy, intrinsic, and not instrumental.
Philosophy is that inescapable development of mind, no matter money. prison or not. But it is not simply acquired, it is a gifr from nature, born with one, like the abillity to sing or draw.
It proves that one should not measure success in terms of money.
PHILOSOPHY MEANS LOVE OF TRUTH AND SO I GUESS THAT IS WHY THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY LOVE TRUTH AND I WISH OUR CONGRESS LOVED TRUTH BUT IT IS THE OPPOSITE.
It proves that people do things for reasons other than filthy lucre.
What are the differences between Philosophy and Philosopher?
Its an assignment in schoolWhat are the differences between Philosophy and Philosopher?
a philosopher is a person
philosophy is the subject the person studies
a philosopher generally thinks about things in a ';deep'; or philosophical way.
philosophers probably do a lot of meta cognitive (sp?) stuff. (thinking about thinking)
...thats all i got. sorry.What are the differences between Philosophy and Philosopher?
A philosophy is a study of something or a concept. A philosopher is a person who studies the idea or concept. See Webster def below.
Main Entry: phi路los路o路phy
Pronunciation: \f蓹-藞l盲-s(蓹-)f膿\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural phi路los路o路phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology %26lt;a doctor of philosophy%26gt; (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought %26lt;the philosophy of war%26gt;
4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Main Entry: phi路los路o路pher
Pronunciation: \f蓹-藞l盲-s(蓹-)f蓹r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English philosophe, philosophre, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
Date: 14th century
1 a: a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : scholar, thinker b: a student of philosophy
2 a: a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b: an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c: one who philosophizes
A philosopher philosophizes philosophy.
one is a person who studies the other... philosophy is the subject
Philosophy is a study, philosophers study that study.
a philosopher is 1 who studies philosophy
Philosophy is the product of a philosophers philosophising..
Daaa...could it be what is done ( philosophy ) by the doer (philosopher )?
a philosopher is a person
philosophy is the subject the person studies
a philosopher generally thinks about things in a ';deep'; or philosophical way.
philosophers probably do a lot of meta cognitive (sp?) stuff. (thinking about thinking)
...thats all i got. sorry.What are the differences between Philosophy and Philosopher?
A philosophy is a study of something or a concept. A philosopher is a person who studies the idea or concept. See Webster def below.
Main Entry: phi路los路o路phy
Pronunciation: \f蓹-藞l盲-s(蓹-)f膿\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural phi路los路o路phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology %26lt;a doctor of philosophy%26gt; (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought %26lt;the philosophy of war%26gt;
4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Main Entry: phi路los路o路pher
Pronunciation: \f蓹-藞l盲-s(蓹-)f蓹r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English philosophe, philosophre, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
Date: 14th century
1 a: a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : scholar, thinker b: a student of philosophy
2 a: a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b: an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c: one who philosophizes
A philosopher philosophizes philosophy.
one is a person who studies the other... philosophy is the subject
Philosophy is a study, philosophers study that study.
a philosopher is 1 who studies philosophy
Philosophy is the product of a philosophers philosophising..
Daaa...could it be what is done ( philosophy ) by the doer (philosopher )?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
