| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I am a teacher of sorts. As a teacher, throughout the years, you pick up on ideas and techniques related to the basic study of “understanding.” Language pupils often evidence growth better and deeper not when learning a new word, but when learning the concept of the word, which is perhaps a dominant factor in Nietzsche’s school of thought: The essence of the word is the object to which the word refers, and the word is just a representation, a poor one at that, of the object. This is true to any other educational paths: Philosophy is more about understanding concepts than it is about understanding ideas. As my philosophy master says, “ideas are fragile, be careful not to break them,” to which I add, “and concepts are solid, make sure you learn them.”
Even the most natural and grounded of activities, such as farming and cultivation, require a thorough understanding of concepts, much more than steps and recipes. As Bertrand Russel said, paraphrased, on the subject, farmers may be happier than intellectuals, not because of the simplicity of the mind, but because of their interest in something specific, just as well as intellectuals may be happier than farmers due to having more interests. However, I believe farmers may be happier than the intellectual regardless of intellect itself. It is more than somewhat satisfying to understand a series of integrated concepts so thoroughly that they could be dreamt of and performed during dreams. When teaching people any art and/or skill, it seems important to keep concepts in plain sight. We should not wish our pupils to learn multiple ideas by heart, but dedicate time for them to understand one concept. This is where education should steer all forth and at full-steam in the XXI century. We hear that schools must teach students to ask questions, yet we should be hearing that schools teach students how to ask questions. Teaching the concept of a question must be the first step. At this point, we should perhaps strive to conceptualize everything we see and feel. Not simply contextualize, but conceptualize, in terms of fully thinking of the concept of the issue more than on the issue itself. Perhaps this is a path to happiness. Perhaps it is simply a path toward conceptualization. All that matters is that it is a path most clarifying and endearing. Let us walk it. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/27/15 09:32 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 21 hours, 4 minutes |
| ||||||
|
That was some refreshingly circular nonsense,
you have raised the bllshit bar in this forum.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 21 hours, 4 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Ideas and concepts are synonyms, the arbitrary differeces you and your Philosophy teacher have assigned them are an ideocyncratic interpretation that I see no evidence of.
| |||||||
|
Humble Student Registered: 11/30/11 Posts: 26,088 Loc: Deep in the syst |
| ||||||
Quote: Yeah, but they don't do they. Not in any useful sense. This was my experience of the educational system, to a tee: The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else. --H.L. Mencken -------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
First of all, if you are looking for evidences in philosophy that are not based on other philophical thoughts, there is something wrong with the method. Philosophy is not made of concrete evidences, but of observation of concrete facts and their interpretation, as well as thoughts on how life, world, self, etc., should be.
Second, I see that, aside of the last comment, two who read this came out with absolutely no concrete idea of what is being said. Have you ever taught professionally? This is a very basic text, although, mind you, I make the distinguishing traits. My philosophy master (not professor, I've had many professors, all exceptional, but only one master) only explained that "ideas are fragile." I see concept as a foundation, and idea as the final product, but you don't need to see it this way, this is the beauty of philosophy. But this is just semantics and metaphors. Concretely, my point is: If you want to teach something, teach by example. Example is the symptom of a concept acquired and made natural to one's functioning. Also, you're better off explaining concepts than formulas, either it is for language teaching, one of my areas of expertise, or cultivation of, say, mushrooms. Recipes and formulas are great, don't get me wrong. But they don't ensure that students will learn anything aside of the exact only recipe. However, if the concept of, say, a still air box is taught instead of "how to make a still air box," the rate of success is higher for those who are trying to make one. In any case, one reply was enough for me to advance the thought. Yeah, it's BS. So what? PS: Joke, tell me about it. This is one my deepets grievances with education, in general, and public education, specifically. Kisses, hugs, and KEEP CALM AND READ PART II Part II – The Concept of a Concept The redundancy seems crystalline. Understanding a concept requires understanding of what a concept is, and, indeed, to understand, it is necessary to understand the concept of understanding. However, dilemmas are for those who seek them, and so are redundancies. There are concepts kin to our nature, even when we do not understand the concept of nature. We are scaffold-sculptured to understand, for example. Therefore, the second part of the first sentence of the text dies as a fragile idea. Striving to understand “understanding” is equally an oxymoron as understanding the need to eat, breathe, defecate, etc. Inasmuch, trying to understand “understanding” could be the opposite of grasping its concept. There is a thought in Judaic-European Hasidut where there are three levels of intellect. The third refers to understanding, the second to comprehending and, for our intents the first step is “wisdom.” The system functions as an upside-down funnel. The top tip is extremely narrow and allows only a single drop of a concept to pour inside and through it. This drop, in a sense, is the concept. Without it, there is no comprehension, hereby considered as the developing substrate of an idea, ricocheting inside our brains until it becomes more and more transparent. When it clears to that central filter, it comes down as understanding, or, for our purposes, the idea becomes so transparent that it could be seen from most visible angles, if not all. This means that, in any case, there is no understanding altogether without conceptualization. If we think not of a concept, it does not even exist. It is only when we conceive a thought that the final, elaborated product of that thought comes as a glimpse at first to then evolve into an idea. If we see conceptualization as the first step to exploiting a developing thought, inversion, culture, etc., it becomes clear that nothing we understand and think as common with others comes without a concept. It does not mean it is the right concept, but it is one out of all of its kind. As an example, we turn again to teaching languages. Students often try to memorize words, conjugations, agreement, gender, voice and everything that relates to the basic recipe of a Grammar Book added with a Dictionary. Since there is enough data around, our inner blanks are filled with more confetti than content. However, even the confetti forms the basis of a strong and shelled concept. Bigotry, for example, as a concept (preconceived only from the point of view of those who have conceived it extensively), stands as shelled a footing as simple concepts, such as: “We need to eat to live.” On the other hand, when other materials are used on the foundation, the better they are, the more coherent the conception of the idea. In this respect, “we need to eat” extends to “what to eat,” “how to eat,” and so forth. Upon improving the matter composing the structure of the thought, it develops into deeper and deeper ideas: “What should we not eat,” “how should we not eat,” “what is food,” and up to the conception of the impossible, such as “can we eat in a more humane manner,” or, “how can I change my feeding habits to be most adequate toward the earth?” Concepts are not simple assumptions. Assuming something is to conceive without thinking. It is no vainer than preconception, notwithstanding what others conceive. They must arise from assumptions, indeed, since those could be our parable spawn to the seeds that will grow into produce. However, this is only half the drop in our funnel paradox. The other half in evolving the assumption into a concept is to know how to distinguish between concepts and non-starters. The question is not asked at this stage. It is almost a naturally occurring process. It requires a fertile brain, in a way, but no more fertile than sand to cacti. We evolve assumptions into the possibility that they may become concepts, or we discard them to avoid preconception. Alas, there are several caveats to conceiving ideas. There are treasures of the mind and scum of the mindless. However, if shortness needs to exist for the sake of nullifying dogmas and creating positivist formulas, we may summarize concepts as the first mental image and/or formulation of an idea. Our cycle follows the structure: Assumptions -> Concepts -> Thoughts -> Well-formed Ideas Assumptions lead to concepts, which lead to thoughts, which lead to ideas. Now, we shall examine the entire structure, considering each of their strongest and weakest features. Seeking this definition requires the analogy to the Judaic philosophy. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/28/15 06:51 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Ever hear of the one by Plato, "you can't carve up the world by its joints"?
Flexion is not arbitrary, but something given to such considerations and priorities of what makes an idea useful, and perhaps demonstrably so in virtue, or not. I'd say there is no overall in this. Only maybe the words of Tom Waits :-) Teacher's like a puppet when you're under his spell... The heart is heaven and the mind is hell... Edited by Kurt (08/28/15 01:59 PM)
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I am not sure I understand what you wrote, but I do understand that you say flexion is not arbitrary. I believe reflexion is not arbitrary (hence the semantics of prefix "re"). But external stimuli as well as internal create assumptions that may or may not become concepts. If they do, it means they solidify. If they don't, it means there is always hope for flexibility and development/growth.
Love Tom Waits, by the way, but I wouldn't know who is the puppeteer controlling the teacher in this metaphor. This is only relevant (what I am writing, at all) to try to understand a method of teaching and learning that is actually simply put: "It is better to conceive than to memorize. It is easier to understand (perhaps only possible so) if one conceives." The fragility of ideas comes exactly from flimsy structures of concepts, ill filtered and solidified. If a person's concept is too solid, even the clearest of ideas crumbles, puddles and slimes down the drain. This is why an idea, on its own, stands as an assumption. The well-formed idea originates from conceptualizing and thinking, thus understanding as much as possible regarding a given subject. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Why do you suppose you default to pedagogy? Consider that this is not just a tap a knee with a hammer question.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I have some pedagogical experience, but if I were to elaborate an answer I'd point to several moments in my life where teaching and learning were important traits in my development.
-------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/28/15 03:04 PM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
That is deeper than a formal connection I take it.
Maybe you can take the notion, or maybe not. I don't mean that is teaching but you'd have to follow to make any sense of what I am saying for example. There is that. But what is the real condition? I think it is no coincidence that Chiron was the "wounded healer" and the great teacher of the Greeks, as the myth goes... Have you ever read the one by Nietzsche "how to philosophize with a hammer? Quote: What about the assumption being a way of seeking destruction of ambling ideas, an implied "whole", as itself being the suggestive manner of thought which rings out? What if the art of it is to take a chunk clean off of the mold? What about clearing a way for the craftsman - literally, that lowly caste which Plato and Aristotle turned on, the one who works with tactile intimation with the physical world? Techne, they called it. The craftsman may likely know that the physiology of an idea, like the uniquely evolved human organism, is not just governed by the formal capacity of the brain, the higher governing function, but that hinge, the distinctive opposition, I mean the hands, fingers and opposable thumbs, which are themselves a hinge in which forms in the world are shaped. Even in our minds we use our hands I think. The world likewise is not just categorically founded in form and content (Or matter), as abstract categories, but their manner of already being involved with one another... and what I have found, in experience anyway, is that this is not necessarily constructive, when you bring it all to bear. Who is to say we should be constructive about ideas at all? To step out of the view of connected reflexion which is always necessary, what does the hammer become? Teachers are ones who do seem to stand outside, but in a different way. They seek to form the world by forming the former. Constructive thought often seems to be the basic assumption of pedagogues who stand closest to the art, or anyways, the goal of course is somehow not the point where the whole situation falls apart of course. Teachers are the closest to represent that relation to techne in general way, and yet in a way which they lose that connection to the art, because of the removal, the formalism, or the hastey undercutting. Techne is very uniquely in the middle, not the higher place or lower seat. It wasn't the highest concept of form to Plato (dis-involved knowledge was) but he returned to techne again and again to make the distinction of removed underatanding. Follow the subtlety of this turning of thought in Aristotle, and it seems like it was not intended to suggest a relation of higher or removed, (beyond or above) in exactly the way we might think, even though his thought is coined "metaphysical". I think the art is a turning on the middle value, the caste of artisans. Quote: The teacher is very close to bearing this relation, but in his case, I think I follow Nietzsche's deconstructions. The inherent susceptibility of the idea, the very necessary idea that ideas should be constructive, interests me, and I am interested in how as soon as you step out of that reasonable assumption, you use the hammer differently. Anyway that would be my own notion to share. Here is another from Nietzsche on that suspect assumption (also from Twilight of the Idols) Quote: Pardon the haphazardness and ramblings or any typos. I'm on a phone here, and a little over-busy. Edited by Kurt (08/28/15 08:23 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 9 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Well I think Art is true..as long as you do something..and take it from start to end..it is a complete thing..and maybe or maybe not can be seen as art..
Where the displacia comes into play is the notion of seeing art in the minds eye..or inside the mind..and though it may be perfect..and you can share it with your psychic friends..it will never be an assemblance of something real in the Material world.. Where the difference lies..is that we maybe conceive of beautiful images..and they may be perfect or you may have revelations on drugs or just sober..but to actually describe them on paper or on the internet may be impossible..the reason for this is what the Gnostics call an Abortion..the whole consideration of matter itself..is known as the abortion for the very reason that you have to be born and learn to walk..then speak..and then do whatever is your particular calling..but it will never come imediately..only after a great amount of time and effort..and in this is the outside world like a wasteland..which doesnt resemble the soul..or Mind at All..but is a big wasteful vacuum...It sucks that even if im a Leonardo Davinci in my mind..it will likely be impossible for me to ever create something like that in (Real life) or outside my own body with my own hands and my own thoughts from thinking to paper..and my own flesh and blood.. It IS a great travesty...and that is one of the main reasons why we are so unhappy..we can never uphold the standards are the men of the famous Renaissance! And even if we try for years..most people will never be able to produce..or write about the very experiences..and images they have in their own mind! But i say this in the most extremely nihilistic manor..it is often the most fortitudinous things that give us the most grief or term oil..but I say this not in jest but in pragmatics.. We should always strive to do our best..in our lives..to attempt to live up to these great standards..is the Great Work itself..so All i am trying to say..is that to do anything at all IS worthy..and that my freinds is the first step..and maybe one day..you will have something worthy..of our Public culture..a Book or a piece of Art....
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 9 minutes |
| ||||||
|
At a tangent..it can be a reason to celebrate just know that you are on any level at all..in mind I can say I am a Grandmaster..or maybe even a Legend or a Prophet..but in words..and images..I can not be known as anything Great..Unless say one of my posts gets Published by a Magazine..or News Paper..or is honestly Apreciated by the masses of the people on this forum..or on any forum..I think art is Beautiful..and i think that if we are honest to ourselves..we may have the technology one day..to make these fabrications of our very most inner thoughts..and the sensations of our being..to which we can fabricate a story..like in Chokmah on the Kabbalah..or maybe just return to the honest display of life(Chesed)..but we will only ever know the Outlines(Netzach)..and that to do good art..is probably the same as saying that i will be true today..and extend myself from my soul..and mind/consciousness..out into the real world..and there in we find Cubism..
and that would be an honest commitment..to just see things through..from start to end!! This could work in any sector of your daily life..Just taking a piece of the Pi..is Great..but imagine having a Whole Pie.. That would be life itself!! Live it to its fullest Colors!!
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
There is an analogy I like. Assumptions could be like bacteria, or even viruses. They may be friendly to one's anatomy, or cause it to fall ill. They may be used to prevent future contaminations. This is similar to the stream of thought I derive my idea, the Jewish Hasidut. While the physical world is compared to a castle, it is compared to a castle in flames. Without the castle, there would be no rich foundation upon which to build. Without the flames, there would be nothing to refurbish.
Where the physical world colonizes its own gaps and pores, shaping itself in multiple copies of the similar prisms. I was thinking the other day about the anatomy of Penis Envy, for example, and how the genitalia, which represent our very existence, is shaped so similarly to other forms in nature. In my text, what I say is nearly identical, since craftspeople, farmers, masons, carpenters, etc., do have the "end thought" as the first "glimpse," but that is only possible based upon their conceptions of the world and of themselves. Today I saw a child bounce a basketball with such grace and awareness of his body and the physical laws governing the environment practically broke that "governing." The physical expanding into the metaphysical. A colonization of sorts? Most colonies form on top of other colonies or groups, which, in itself, could be either pure evil, good, or simply nature as nature is. I agree about teachers. Not that teachers, themselves, ae necessarily at fault, but it is the "grinding machine" spitting out lecturers that creates a need not to teach the basis of thought, but the evolved thought on its own (a great example is how mathematics are taught). More on that later. Update: "Who is to say we should be constructive about ideas at all? To step out of the view of connected reflexion which is always necessary, what does the hammer become?" No one. I believe thinking in a matter of should as opposed to could is already a pre-construction, thus a preconception, or a concept infected with an assumtpion. "Teachers are ones who do seem to stand outside, but in a different way. They seek to form the world by forming the former. Constructive thought often seems to be the basic assumption of pedagogues who stand closest to the art, or anyways, the goal of course is somehow not the point where the whole situation falls apart of course." This is only when teachers have some kind of autonomy, which is not the case in our educational system as is not the case in most. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/29/15 03:41 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 21 hours, 4 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Royque 1980 are you putting quotation marks around random sentences as you type them for the first time?
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
No but I didn't know how to insert too many quotes in one post without double posting. All of those marks refer to Kurt's words. Why would I put quotation marks in what I write? Doesn't make any sense unless you think I'm more retarded than I factually am, dude!
You assume a lot but don't seem to care to elaborate your unfiltered assumptions. First, I want to debate all aspects, including those brought up by Kurt and Brendan. I think, Brendan, you may be concentrating more on the existentialist factor of "art as a concept," but I am looking to elaborate an abstract idea regarding the "concept as an art." Also, Kurt, there are several parts I did not understand from your replies, so I apologize (you wrote well, I am studying yout words at a closer look) for not delivering the responses you wished to read. Check out the ideas I took from this "debate" attributed to you inspiring me are aligned to how you presented them in terms of my limited ability to understand it. Do you have practical experience in the academic, philosophical scenario? Part II.b. Assumptions To assume is to presume, inevitably. Once an assumption falls through the inverted funnel, it must be filtered before it crashes unto the fertile media of ideas. We may think of the inverted funnel as a cap for a scalped head, leaving a brain exposed as an engine. If the assumption falls right through the storage, it is filed as if it had been through the entire process of metabolizing a thought. However, if properly filtered with other information to assist and support the assumption, deeming it worthy of going through the funnel, or deeming it disposable, concepts are first generated, before dropping into the brain chamber. This process seems to occur naturally in three ways: a. When foundations are 'strong,' an assumption may not require filtering. b. When foundations are 'weak,' the filter does not seem to function well. c. When foundations are 'consistent' and 'solid,' the filter functions as it is supposed to function. It is according to the foundations in our filters - which do not need be of any specific strains and races and cultures and genders - that assumptions are naturally assessed as valid or fruitless according to endless standards. If one thinks, for example, that a holy book speaks only the absolute and final truth, and if those thoughts are based on the preconception that there are no metaphors or exceptions to the rule of the words of the sacred compilation, the filter may disregard any assumptions that do not conform to that reality, as it may quickly allow passage to any assumption that speaks to the heart of the preconception and, with time, solidify into the structure of another concept. Thus, in the event that the spawn falls through the cracks of our filters, it is rare that it can develop into thoughts and, later, into well-formed ideas. It is similar to any spawn exposed to infections and other parodies of trickster Mother Nature, which would not produce the seed, but only mold, or bacteria, or diseases of the mind. Strong assumptions without due process may become assets of paranoia or psychosis. Weak assumptions are probably naturally discarded as excrement from the human body. Filters require proper feeding, by any means, to operate in as regular a fashion as possible. They require feeding that comes through sound bases and other strong concepts, which simply do not solidify and lack consistency, or feeding that comes from matter that creates those chemical bonds necessary for solidification and consistency. It all depends on food for thought, in itself a perfect example of food for thought. Assumptions are like bacteria, viruses, which may be processed as antibiotics or kill, contaminate and destroy. Falling unfiltered, they contaminate concepts, which contaminate thoughts and contaminate ideas. In this sense, the metaphor of the pure drop of assumption changes from free-falling to floating down and unhinged. As it does, it spreads spores of contaminates, bacteria and viruses. Those may still be processed as antibiotics, or, to our analogy, as remedies for the ill that these assumptions cause. One such example is when a person undergoes through the metamorphosis of an individual’s psyche as a former racist or misogynist to a defender of racial and gender equality. Unfiltered assumptions become produce of fruitful thoughts, (from any perspective of value attribution), when individuals in question have the capacity to “self-heal” and conceal new thoughts and, fatally, ideas. This means that, as these imperfect molecules cross the inverted funnel, they may contaminate an organism that has great defense mechanisms, such as fully biologically efficient antibodies. In any case, we are all sufferers of contaminations, and not only vulnerable to new ones. Ideas change, and we should be thankful for that, since it is their development that allows intellectual mobility, or the incorporation of concepts in such a manner that they become not only abstract thoughts, but “hands conceptualized in the brain of a craftsperson” as he/she incorporates their craft in such a manner that it ceases to be only metaphysical, bridged with the most concrete of realities (*Kurt’s contribution). Next, we shall speak of concept as part of the material that comprises ideas, before speaking of the “art of conceptualization,” as a whole. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/30/15 09:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Hey Roy, based on your post in response I thought you were following. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought your post was focused and interesting. Hope you are not losing your bananas here, though. I think Falcon just missed that you were quoting me.
Anyway, here is my response to your previous post. Do you believe there is inherent value to concept? I tend to find an emphasis at least in a critique of the technicality of concepts. Things seem to go down hill from there... By the way, I am not an academic just your ordinary hill wandering nihilist, or whatever you want to call it. The criticism would be basically the same in all considerations, and it could be more or less fairly given. You can recognize the essential arbitrariness of conceptuality. I am not just saying that because there is any face value reason to point it out, but I think anyone could at any point say so nonetheless. The meaning behind conceptual analysis, at least I understand is essentially in taking taking something apart. The concept of analysis etymologically bears the meaning of "unloosening" in the Greek analuein. This is something that is sometimes (ie. historically) misunderstood, when analysis is also within certain means, just essentially presenting something as it is, in how it is. That is analysis and so is the other. How could it be both? Well it seems to me anything can be analyzed, from trees to tables to laptops that sit on them, to language that is written through this and sent out. Analysis as "unloosening" was most fittingly intended to apply primarily to certain craft items, like tables or chairs, or other useful things. This intimation is already made: Specifically, anything that has been given form in some sense is in principle, not being found as what it is in itself, as physis or nature. Such a thing that has been formed has been imposed on either in conception, or in the case of the craftsman that carries formation out in reality. By "unloosening", ie. analysis classically, we are able to unconceal how a thing is. There is a direction in this. The chair might paradigmatically be unloosened until it "stands firm" in itself in substantia, in matter, say, the point where it is just wood. Now it is born in itself once again, unimposed on, and mainly it is in our minds that we think this. It is something we present. We can do this unloosening in our mind or talking, or literally. This is paradigmatic instance of human reasoning born to mind. I'd certainly say you can take this or leave it. There is literalism as what is passed down. For instance, much as the "matter" bears an essential etymological connection to timber (kind of funny) perhaps there is a hint in this essential turning point of craft, or at least in this essential analogy of the Greeks. It is one to look to. I think it is possible to see both the emphasized importance of the technical concept and the essential arbitrariness and emptiness of it at the same time. I would argue that in bearing emphasis on craft, (and human means and ends, as art) as Aristotle did, it is possible to see that conceptual analysis is essentially revealing the emptiness of forms, rather than the substantiality. The direction of analysis can become a pursuit, namely the probing and attempt to get at the "underlying thing", breaking down and building up, in forms, or it can suggest how the concept is founded to turn on its own form as empty. I believe that is the essence of any concept. If we thought decisively about the means and ends of our conceptual involvements, I think such a notion could at least be seen. Take it for what you will. I'd say we tend to piggy back on concepts though, the situation we are given over to. The unloosening is surely there and not by accident, in that without unloosening all things would already be present in themselves. But that is conceptuality if you ask me, it is a misunderstanding of these involvements in most cases, when people give it inherent value. Or in terms of the analogy, perhaps it is important to show how the material substance wood, is like the tree in that both stand in themselves, as present in nature, in themselves, and yet just as well the chair or table exists in itself too, no less, if we are clear in these concepts. I don't believe I have any argument with you, I just don't think there is any virtue in presenting concepts in life. I decided not to do the academic thing and have traveled and farmed for a living. There is a reason things are analyzed, and born to concept, it is just not a wholly compelling reason ultimately. The only virtue of a concept is to bear these conceptual forms (such as the chair) to mind as they are, insofar as they seem to obtruded. The only reason to bear a the concept of a concept is to return it to its context wherein it is possible to recognize the emptiness of concepts. Of course concepts can be filled too, but I think there is plenty of natural guidence in this direction. Conceptuality does not seem to me to be a virtue. It is techne, or art in that sense, and the means to bear.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Also this thread seems to be getting competitive. I am not sure if what I am saying fits, so take it for what it is worth.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
As a former cultivator (not really farming, but seeding, planting and harvesting flowers and cacti - non-mescaline producing), I can attest I have seen no better philosophers as farmers.
Quote: Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/30/15 09:41 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
Quote:Quote: I think if you look, there actually is face value in the concept insofar as it is based on an idea of what the craft is. For example, when a musician says the band is making a "concept" album, there is in that way inevitably an appeal to the craft just as much as the particular concept. That is not just one thing and the other, and definitely I tend to think it can't actually be abstracted, in a simple way. When the artist in the magazine interview says that he is making a conceptual piece, that is the closest it comes to becoming explicit, but what is that worth? What I see in that is an inherent criticism of this joint relation in concept (both the notion and how it relates to the craft) when it comes to bear. I think there is a way that in thinking of it, the technical process recedes when you are working with something. For example, when the craftsman's hammer comes to its proper use, it stands more in what it is as it withdraws, Heidegger would say. Also when Nietzsche talks about using a hammer with a different result, that seems to me to be using the hammer in the ordinary way that a hammer thing is, only with an equally implied, different result. To come to your particular idea, I would say the difference in ideas and concepts, does not seem to me to be defined intrinsically, or in a way that is possible to abstract exactly. The hardening or consolidation of an idea as "concept" "conceptuality" "conceptualism", or structure in general is seen in one way, from the outside, and that is something suspect. I think the fragility of ideas is appropriate, and the ease in which they are overlooked or undermined, is maybe a bit unjust but that is what makes art, in the world, not consolidation. With art... I think it is best to accept the conditional ways that ideas or notions strike you. I think falcon's original criticism is on point. If you think that through self reference, ideas can somehow stand more firmly, maybe you are missing his criticism. I am interested in the way the hammer becomes something else or how it recedes, mainly in these involved art situations. I think the closest I was to being on the same page was here: Quote: Is the kid is thinking about principles, or even the art of how to dribble a basketball for example, when dribbling the basketball? I would not deny there is something beyond the art, or artist's existence, yet also it is the point where the art also withdraws or recedes. What people always say of art in that sense seems to be true. Maybe what more can be said, is that the art is somehow (like the craftsman in a social world) in the middle of this. But clearly in these relations are all in reference to the art, or human existence in some kind of joint way. I see the withdrawing has prescedence. I am not for any conceptuality standing out, or existing. For example, tell the kid (or yourself) what he is doing, when he dribbles the basketball and where does that get anyone. I think there is a kind of mediated institutional role of teachers. The focus on technique, and concept, misses what the art is, but I don't doubt they have value. Look to the Greeks I always would say, both in philosophy and the stories they told. For example Chiron taught all the great Greek heroes in the myth, and was wounded but could not heal himself. There is also the craftsman God, Hephaestus. I'd say it isn't by any coincidence he was lame or even ugly. He was married to Aphrodite, the god of love and beauty (as Zeus's arrangement for her). These symbols stand out to me. This discussion seems to be of shaping the shapers, in various involutions and infiltrations. The question Plato always asked the sophists, is what are you doing, that becomes an art of teaching/conceptualization. What is the turn from classical form, or idea to conceptualization and pedagogy that you yourself are trying to make? Edited by Kurt (08/30/15 04:17 PM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I'll look closer at your thesis too btw. I am having a difficult time understanding the esoteric departure, in Judaic Hasidut.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
what does art mean to you? | 1,174 | 7 | 06/17/04 08:59 AM by redgreenvines | ||
![]() |
martial arts ( |
5,538 | 43 | 05/26/04 12:46 PM by Swami | ||
![]() |
The ability to conceptualize ( |
4,049 | 27 | 01/18/04 01:05 PM by jpod | ||
![]() |
Conceptual thinking. | 1,324 | 1 | 05/01/06 12:43 PM by TheQueen | ||
![]() |
Conceptual Evolution And Physical Evolution | 3,321 | 15 | 04/19/05 06:33 PM by entiformatie | ||
![]() |
What is art? ( |
2,873 | 27 | 05/12/03 12:50 AM by Sclorch | ||
![]() |
My essay on Koans and the Zen arts. | 1,237 | 6 | 12/16/02 07:57 AM by 3eyedgod | ||
![]() |
Science vs. Art ( |
2,165 | 24 | 03/16/05 06:20 PM by slowburner |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 1,785 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

you have raised the bllshit bar in this forum.

