You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Higher Order Thinking: An Introduction
I read this eighteen years ago.
I understood about a third of it quite clearly...that was enough for me to transform all my perspectives on how we manage to understand things.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_CIS_full.pdf
This guy knew more about philosophy than anybody else, I think.
Hey!
I just got through this book. It was a most satisfying read. Thank you for sharing the link....
@shenobie
Well, @shenobie, I'd like to know how it affected your perspectives and your activities, if you'd be kind enough share your experience of that.
I haven't heard much from people about their insights...it would be nice...
In any case, it's nice to hear that you appreciate that guy's work!
Best wishes
Hi @rortian,
Philosophy is one of my favourite subject matter areas, and I am one of those to who people who always say' you think too much' or 'over analyse' :-D
In the book I agreed for example very much about our truths being the general interpretations of language.
Another part I thought rung true was the different nature of interpretation of langue- for example when it came to religion. The nature of groups, for example in religion, classifying themselves as 'us', which means there are a 'you' which leads to conflicts and justifications for horrors that we commit upon on each other.
I also really enjoyed how he used Kant, Freud and Nietzsche to make his points.
Overall I thought it was a fun book! Rorty's style is relaxed, and even though I had trouble with a few sentences or ideas here and there, it was not a big deal. Anyone who likes to engage with a thought on self and society will find a lot to ruminate on in here.
Best Wishes
@Shenobie
PS: I understand how you feel about feedback and gaining other people's insights. I am new to Steemit and try and produce work that is of good quality. I have had very little input and when asked for it, I had pretty bad reactions!
It is quite disheartening when you see memes getting upvoted a ridiculous number of times and honest work by others ignored.
However, I guess I do it for the passion for writing- I never realised Steemit was a platform for $$$'s and upvotes. I came of all social media a few years ago and thought this would be an excellent platform to showcase opinion pieces that free from the restrictions that are required when I submit work to formal publications.
However, I soldier on!
As the quote goes:
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
― Herman Melville
Thanks for sharing, @shenobie. I appreciate it.
All the best,
Mike
My pleasure @rortian
Regards
Avinash
It's interesting that you like both Rescher and Rorty, given Rescher's rather scathing view of Rorty.
While I like Rescher quite a bit, Rorty doesn't interest me.
Rorty doesn't interest me
Well, axio, my only interest in history is what we can manage to learn about it that will provide a better future and more possibilities for people.
And my main interest in philosophy is pedagogic; if it doesn't apply in action then it's useless by definition. That's why they invented pragmatism.
btw, did you ever figure out that formal languages and natural ones differ with regard to the relevance of truth?? It was obvious to the guys whom I learned from...and it's pretty clear on the face of it... (I think)...Truth is a property of symbolic expressions based on given (true) presumptions and a limited set of operations.
confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias is pronounced in the case of ingrained, ideological, or emotionally charged views.
Do you wonder about human nature? Do you think of it in terms of mathematics, I wonder?
Hmmmm.
I suppose you could say that I'm interested in philosophy as the handmaid of theology. Since my answers to your questions about truth and human nature are principally theological, they might not interest you.
If you are curious, the view I have of human nature is scattered over a number of papal encyclicals, though it has a rather nice summary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As for truth, I do not regard it as a property of language (except perhaps in a secondary sense). Jesus Christ is the life, the truth, and the way. Interestingly, he is the Word too.
A marvelous set of questions orbit around the so-called Mystery of Rationality, which Einstein wrote a bit about. Questions like: How is irrationality possible? How is pure mathematics possible? How is science of the natural world possible? From a theological point of view, the rationality of the world is God's Logos immanent in the world.
Philosophy and critical thinking are about open (as in openminded!) inquiry into what you don't already know.
As I told you, knowing the truth disqualifies one from a) understanding what philosophy is about, and b) understanding anything that doesn't accord with your already-beliefs.
"how is irrationality possible?"
lol People don't understand the first thing to know about things: How does one know what's what?
E.G. Your question: To what definition of rationality does it refer?
Nobody understands the true or right definition of that!!!
Asking that question demonstrates that you presume that you (or someone) can know what 'rationality' is; to me that's not very rational.
Part of wisdom is understanding the limits of what humans can possibly understand.
Knowing the truth prevents that.
Knowing the truth means being stuck in a narrow frame with no opening for critical (rational) inquiry
into anything different - how rational is that?
If, as you say, no one understands the true or right definition of "rationality," then it is strange for you to refer to my position as "not very rational."
But there is an important distinction to make here, namely: you can know what truth is even while lacking an exhaustive understanding of that truth; so knowing what the truth is does not necessarily stop open inquiry. Certainly this is true with respect to God, who is (aside from revelation) infinitely beyond anything we can think, say, or write. Your point about the limits of human understanding is thus well taken.
In fact, that is what attracts me to the religious mindset! Sincere religion makes one alive to the mystery of things, keeping in check mankind's tendency to "know it all."
If, as you say, no one understands the true or right definition of "rationality," then it is strange for you to refer to my position as "not very rational."
lol
You might be starting to get the idea, ax.
Opinions aren't true, no matter how hard we might want them to be.
There are many different ways to describe a concept, many shades of meaning, none of which is absolutely true. We each have general (often quite vague) ideas about what things mean.
Otherwise we couldn't converse.
In formal language there are no vague ideas. In natural tongues practically everything is vague. That's why philosophy and empirical science are useful, because they're our only tools for cutting through the crap.
you can know what truth is even while lacking an exhaustive understanding of that truth; so knowing what the truth is does not necessarily stop open inquiry...Your point about the limits of human understanding is thus well taken.
Knowing what 'truth' is (i.e . correspondence) is easy. Knowing that we don't know the certain truth about things makes open inquiry possible.
In fact, that is what attracts me to the religious mindset! Sincere religion makes one alive to the mystery of things, keeping in check mankind's tendency to "know it all."
To me, the Absolute must remain mysterious; I trust in Being and I live in mystery. To me talking about the unknowable distracts people from things that are more important than discussing the nature of deities. That's why I emphasize the importance of understanding the limits of human understanding.
If you want to cut the crap, learn philosophy!
We both have a sense for what is rational (and what is not), even if we lack a formal definition of rationality. Mathematics is much larger than formal language, which is what Gödel proved. There are certainly obscurities in mathematics.
I heartily disagree with your campaign against rationality and truth. By the way, what I have proposed as truth (which, as I said, may not be interesting to you) has nothing to do with correspondence or coherence; it is transcendent in the sense that it goes beyond methods used in science or philosophy.
When the Lord told Pilate he was the truth, Pilate responded philosophically, "What is truth?" You are in Pilate's camp, I suppose. But the philosophical denial of truth is just one way of disguising the Tyranny of Relativism, which always results in the use of force over reason (because it denies reason its critical role).
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2500)
I don't campaign against rationality; you're mistaken about that.
I'm not in Pilate's camp.
I campaign against bullshit asserted by people who don't understand what's what.