Tremolo's Favorite Links on reality from Diigo

Fractal Ontology: Ortega y Gasset and the Origin of Philosophy

Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:35:54 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

With this in mind, Ortega argues that there are two ways for thoughts to progress: one thought may imply another, or a thought may complicate the other. The latter Ortega calls “synthetic or dialectic thought” (16). For Ortega, a thought is synthetic or dialectic if it is irresistibly imposed on us, and if the first thought cannot be complete without the second. In this sense, the dialectic stresses continuity and necessary totality because it has to be taken further, through yet another synthesis. He writes, “The dialectic is the obligation to continue thinking, and this is not merely a manner of speaking, but an actual reality. It is the very fact of the human condition” (17).

Tags: existentialism materialism reality

Posted by: tremolo

Existential despair: Information from Answers.com

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The term despair, when used by existentialists, refers to the fact that all the choices we make are based on uncertain information and an incomplete understanding of the world.

When discussing existentialism, people often are referring to Sartre's philosophy, but generalizations about existentialism should be made with caution, as the term refers to the works of a series of fairly divergent philosophers and authors, rather than a coherent and solitary world view. The one proposition that unifies all existentialists is that existence precedes essence, which means that there is no such thing as human nature or an essential character that is natural or determining for human life.

Tags: absolutism contextual existentialism fragmentation freedom

Posted by: tremolo

liminal being: Information from Answers.com

Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:22:58 -0000

Tags: alienation consciousness fantasy fragmentation perception

Posted by: tremolo

TPM Online Article

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:49:51 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Free will is just one example, of course, but it is not atypical. Unlike in science, debate in philosophy does not naturally lead to a consensus. In philosophy, we do not have discovery piling on discovery, each new fragment of knowledge questioning the one before, until sufficient findings accumulate to decide the matter one way or the other. Rather we have argument piling on argument, each new fragment of knowledge questioning the one before, but with little accumulation of findings to decide the matter one way or the other.

“Not much chance of that,” is the obvious reply. Philosophers agreeing with each other? Whatever next? But this, joking aside, is the problem. Whilst there is debate in science, there is also consensus. But the extent to which consensus exists in philosophy is itself debatable.

According to Rescher, most philosophical debates fit the model of the aporetic cluster; philosophical problems arise because commonsense fundamental beliefs are inconsistent. > > >

Are we doomed, then, to endlessly debate philosophical problems without any hope of resolution? Well, perhaps we are, but so what? > >

This is one possible reply, anyway; that consensus is not the point of philosophy. The journey is more important than the finish line, in contrast to science, where the finish line is clearly the goal – discovering a new elementary particle or finding a cure for some debilitating disease – no matter how fascinating the journey. > >

But surely there must be at least a > > hope > > of reaching a consensus of some sort? Progress must be seen to be made > > to some extent > > otherwise how can we differentiate between professional philosophy and playground chatter of the “my dad is bigger than your dad!” sort? Scientists can answer the dispute empirically – get the two dads side by side and let's see who is bigger. > >

But philosophy does not have this option (unless it utilises science, of course). How, then, do we decide who has the bigger dad? Is there in fact a way to decide or is philosophy doomed to eternal debate, always travelling, never reaching the finish line, except in those rare cases when it is helped across the line by science? > >

Tags: consensus contextual reality schism species

Posted by: tremolo