Quote:
<strong>I think there is a large difference.
Those examples you gave involve fairly concrete information. e.g. "Why is he doing that?" involves trying to think of some possible previous event in the recent past that led to that person doing that. In the question asker's previous experience they would have observed similar situations and through some inferences and recombinations they could infer what the person probably did previously to end up doing what they're currently doing. "Where's my Mom?" involves the person having a concrete visual goal (finding Mom) and they would think about the places they know exist. "Where did you get that football card?" involves concrete details.
Philosophy on the other hand isn't about specific details - it is about the big picture. Looking at the entire world or your life at once and trying to think up generalisations. Usually people just worry what is relevant to their day to day needs. (etc).</strong>
|
Actually, two of the thoughts are less concrete and more abstract than you may realize (the third I worded sloppily, and I thought I'd edited the post to clarify that, but I only see the one edit and the question remained the same). "Why is he doing that?" does not just deal with a previous event, it goes into actually thinking about the possible motivations, and therefore perspective, of the other individual. "Where did you get that football card?" is similarly more complex than the mere concrete details. One is not likely to be as interested in a football card if one does not appreciate what football is (a game with rules) involving teams of appointed athletic representatives of municipalities who play different positions within the game, and who may move from team to team. In other words, a combination of concrete and abstract details. With regards to the other question, "Where's my Mom?", I have to agree with your assessment, which is why I tried to change it to "Do you know where my Mom is?" (I think I left the post window without posting first). The reason why I picked these particular questions is that these are questions I have been asked, but not as they are written. The questions were asked with a combination of gesture, facial expression, picture symbols, references to environmental props, and the occasional spoken, written, or signed word. The thing that I question is whether these questions are really so fundamentally different from the philosophical thinking you mention, particularly on the neurological processing level that probably comprises "conscious thought". I do not think that the
what is being thought about is nearly as important as
how the thinking occurs. Because if the mechanisms and the processes are the same for "philosophical" and more "mundane" thinking (and I have never seen a convincing reason to think otherwise), then even one who does not commonly think "philosophical thoughts" still has all the ability and potential to think "philosophical thoughts". And such a one would certainly be able to evaluate his/her goals and, for that matter, external and internal experiences.
Quote:
Originally posted by excreationist:
<strong>
But since you knew some words you could tie these words to your experiences. So by using the words you can trigger the experiences. And though you mightn't have spoken many words out loud much, if you were intelligent at that time then you obviously understood complex words. So perhaps you thought in a half intuitive (non-verbal) half rational (verbal) way.... with the occasional words, but you were aware of the precise meanings (without inbetween words like "so" and "is", etc)</strong>
|
Well maybe, I am looking back 39 years on this one.
Regards,
"Ed"
not to be confused with that
other Ed, to whom I dedicate this emotocon...
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>
02-19-2002, 09:57 PM
