Epistemology and Attitude: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Epistemology and Attitude » Epistemology and Attitude

Epistemology and Attitude
How our attitude effects our knowledge

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Epistemology and Attitude

Nick_A
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 103

Posted 06/04/06 - 07:33 AM: Subject: Epistemology and Attitude	#1
Hi All Do you believe that there is a relationship between epistemology and attitude? Can our attitude help or hinder what our knowledge is founded upon and its validity as it relates to truth as a goal of philosophy? From dictionary.com [quote]e·pis·te·mol·o·gy n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity[quote] I believe that attitude is very important and from what I've experienced on the Internet there seems to be a backlash under the name of philosophy that displays more and more an attitude of rudeness, condemnation, and pomposity initiating from some sort of defense mechanism that seeks self justification by spinning ideas around. So what then is the true value of this knowledge in the context of the ideal of truth as appreciated by philosophy in the classic sense Philosophy in the eyes of many appears to be a vehicle to destroy what our egotism asserts is below us rather than to experience the attraction to the great truths we sense are above us and open ourselves to them. I know this appears idealistic in this day and age but I am curious if some here feel it as well. I believe philosophy is losing its heart Our attitude affects the quality of our knowledge. A fact is a fact but its philosophic value in the traditional sense can only be determined in the context of its relationship to more facts. In chess for example I can say b-e3. I say that a bishop is now on the third rank of the e file. So what? It has no meaning or value without seen in the context of a chess position over the board. In life our attitudes invite us to accept certain facts and ignore others. We see what we want.We create an imaginaryposition over the board. Meaning is created for us through this discrimination. it would seem that philosophy would seek to discourage this trend but I've actually seen it encouraged under the name of "sophistication." Many of the ancient traditions understood this far better than we do now. Consider what this Buddhist writes about"right speech:" http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/rightspeech.htm [quote]Notice the focus on intent: this is where the practice of right speech intersects with the training of the mind. Before you speak, you focus on why you want to speak. This helps get you in touch with all the machinations taking place in the committee of voices running your mind. If you see any unskillful motives lurking behind the committee's decisions, you veto them. As a result, you become more aware of yourself, more honest with yourself, more firm with yourself. You also save yourself from saying things that you'll later regret. In this way you strengthen qualities of mind that will be helpful in meditation, at the same time avoiding any potentially painful memories that would get in the way of being attentive to the present moment when the time comes to meditate. In positive terms, right speech means speaking in ways that are trustworthy, harmonious, comforting, and worth taking to heart. When you make a practice of these positive forms of right speech, your words become a gift to others. In response, other people will start listening more to what you say, and will be more likely to respond in kind. This gives you a sense of the power of your actions: the way you act in the present moment does shape the world of your experience. You don't need to be a victim of past events. For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we're used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness -- all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse. Actually, there's enough irony in the state of the world that we don't need to exaggerate or be sarcastic. The greatest humorists are the ones who simply make us look directly at the way things are.[quote] So what is our intent regarding philosophy? Is our post intended to condemn the fool or try collectively experience our foolishness in relation to the greater truths that call us? I'm not trying to be critical as much as trying to understand the nature of the situation. Do you find, as I do, that he is describing "humor" pertaining to philosophy as it so often is in these times? Does this attitude help or deprive us of the quality of knowledge aspired to through philosophy? I would appreciate reading some opinions on this question. Maybe it is just me but I see these negative attitude of condemnation or artificial "wonderfulness" becoming more and more prevalent while awe and wonder, once a staple in philosophy, is degenerating more and more into expressions of escapism and fantasy making truth meaningless. Any comments
Nick "All men are ready to die for what they love. They differ only through the level of the thing loved and the concentration or diffusion of their love. No one loves himself. Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 2680

Posted 06/04/06 - 08:55 AM:	#2
Nick, In positive terms, right speech means speaking in ways that are trustworthy, harmonious, comforting, and worth taking to heart. When you make a practice of these positive forms of right speech, your words become a gift to others. In response, other people will start listening more to what you say, and will be more likely to respond in kind. I believe Confucius wrote something along the lines, "If someone refuses your love, examine your love, if someone refuses your hospitality, examine your hospitality" Don't you think that instead of blaming things on "this day and age" or a "backlash", or those with "more and more an attitude", if the mark of right speech is that others will "start listening more", then perhaps even though one is convinced of one's proper "perspective" it is in need of more reflection? Edited by Dunamis on 06/04/06 - 09:21 AM
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Nick_A
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 103

Posted 06/04/06 - 06:24 PM:	#3
Are you hinting? All kidding aside, I know what you mean especially in my case. While the main purpose of this thread is the question of our attitude towards the great ideas and if we see them as suggesting something greater than ourselves or as tools of intimidation, you refer to how we communicate it. As you know, I believe Plato through the Cave allegory and Buddhism through parable of the Burning House suggest that Man is asleep to reality. Especially with how modern philosophy reflects so much egotism, this goes over like a lead balloon. My question is how to make this point without becoming insulting to those that pride themselves in their intellect? Since I was very young I always disliked sugar coated explanations designed to make people happy. I admired truth and always felt this as condescending. Yet this BS was normal for the expression of greater ideas. Later in life I learned that there were a minority of people that thrived on honesty in search of truth and they had no need wallow in personal insult. It took a while to believe that this was so but my experience has shown it to be the case. So naturally I was relieved to find that there were others much brighter than myself that valued this honesty over saying the established "right" thing or build a reputation through complaints. The excerpt you post pertains for me to normal life interactions. Here no one is concerned with Plato's cave and such disturbing thoughts but just trying to make it through the day with perhaps a smile at the end. So naturally it is good to be comforting harmonious and the like creating good feelings. It is all that is wanted. But philosophy and especially the views I take suggest a not too pretty picture. it suggests cyclic occurrences including wars as natural progressions reflecting the level of man's "being.." To make matters worse, we are oblivious of it either asleep in the cave or bickering in the burning house unaware of the greater danger. There is no way to express this comforting and retain its meaning and urgency. It is a turn off. Socrates was condemned as a bad influence. Meister Eckhart was almost thrown out of the church. It is only through information saved about him that he finally has acquired the status he has. Consider Simone Weil in modern times. She lived her philosophy at the expense of her own body and career. Yet hated as she was in the beginning by education, it has come full circle. When she was fired for marching with the workers: [quote]When she was fired she thanked her superiors and declared that she had always regarded dismissal as the normal culmination of her career. Weil taught again at a school in Roanne where she continued to help organize unemployed and exploited workers. At Roanne one of her students, Anne Reynaud-Guérithault, preserved the notes she had taken in Simone Weil's turbulent second year as a school teacher. Those student notes were published decades later, and are now used as textbooks in college-level courses in philosophy.[quote] I admire her combination of brilliance and honesty yet the status quo and PC correctness of the time hated it. If she had only said comforting and harmonious ideas in accordance with established standards she would not have contributed the good that she now has. She would not have tempted people to think out of the box. Yes I am no Simone Weil. But still I must suggest these unpleasant things if I believe them. I must if philosophy is to have any meaning for me. I became friendly with Bettejo on another site a while ago. She was intrigued with certain ideas of mine and asked for sources. She did her share of reading and we became friendly. She took to deep ideas like a fish to water. But the only reason we could initially relate is that we both did not want to be sweet talked or talked down to by this PC wisdom. She bombed and was ridiculed as too cold on Beliefnet but in real life, even though she is not a public speaker, her honesty moves people. http://www.marykoch.com/better_not.htm I guess the sad truth in my case is that I must learn when to be truthful and when and how to lie and flatter for effect. This is not the case in real life. I've organized two public book discussions on Jacob Needleman's "Lost Christianity." On both occasions some would show up without having read it just to complain and ridicule in the usual way. They were asked to leave and read the book if they want to attend. Two returned for the first discussion. By the conclusion we were all friends including the Atheists and we all agreed that there was a lot we didn't know about Christianity. There was some real pointed honesty during our meetings but it was good. This good would have been impossible if everyone only spoke established platitudes. I really don't know if such honesty is possible on the Internet without the eye contact and real human interaction. I'd love to have a round table discussion here with you, me, Bettejo, and some open minded that are willing to discuss the causes and horrors of war not from the political perspective but from the psycho/spiritual one as a natural response of man's collective being. When Bettejo was debating going to Iraq I warned against it. But she replied that part of humanity must witness these things spiritually for what they are. It is part of our collective learning. But this requires real honesty or else it degenerates into the usual politics of fault. I really don't know if such things are possible over the Internet that is so vulnerable to agenda. I'm pretty clear that for me the great ideas are beyond me and indicate the direction for man back to its source. As such it is ludicrous for me to think of intimidating anyone by perverting these ideas. Yet how and when to express them is an open question. When the goal of philosophy is awakening to wisdom, what good is it to speak of comforting in sleep? If man's being is chaotic and in contradiction, what good is it to speak of a harmony that we don't have? But my mistake here is that I am speaking from my perspective and a minority one at that. So perhaps it is better to just go with the flow. But if that were the case I would never have met Bettejo. I know I am guilty of something but not quite sure what it is. Dunamis, you are right to suggest what you did and I admit to being very confused about it. It just goes to show how subtle this question is. How much do our attitudes effect our objectivity and resultant knowledge of "being" as it pertains to the desired truth of philosophy? What effect can our speech regardless of its truth have on attitudes especially if not flattering? When is it advisable to be honest if not flattering as in the concept of Plato's cave? I guess it requires experience and obviously experience I don't always have. But the gods have provided good scotch as compensation.
Nick "All men are ready to die for what they love. They differ only through the level of the thing loved and the concentration or diffusion of their love. No one loves himself. Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 2680

Posted 06/04/06 - 07:15 PM:	#4
Nick wrote: The excerpt you [actually you] post pertains for me to normal life interactions. Somehow I imagine that the Buddha would not understand the "normal life" restriction you would like to place upon his "wisdom". Then again, use the "right speech" wisdom to legtimate your own speech, rather than an opportunity to discover something about oneself. Edited by Dunamis on 06/04/06 - 08:17 PM
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Nick_A
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 103

Posted 06/05/06 - 06:53 AM:	#5
Of course the Buddha understands: we don't. This is the whole point. Consider the life of Milarepa. http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Av/Milarepa/Milarepa.htm His teacher taught what was necessary for him and impossible for most. The attitude of the teacher towards Milarepa would have to be different than that of a normal person he may come in contact with. the teacher must consider the the goals and understandings of who he encounters. What do they want and need. I'm no teacher but still I have come to see and to an extent experience the soundness of these ideas expressed by Plato, esoteric Christianity, and Buddhism. But it is only attractive to some and annoying to the majority. So what must my attitude be in terms of philosophical expression towards what I've come to believe as valuable knowledge of "being" where expression itself is limited to language? It has to reflect my deep respect for these profound ideas but, as you can see, the transition from experience into expression is not so easy. To make matters, it can become cyclical and gradually ones conceptions change as they begin to reflect their distorted expressions.
Nick "All men are ready to die for what they love. They differ only through the level of the thing loved and the concentration or diffusion of their love. No one loves himself. Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 883

Posted 06/05/06 - 07:07 AM:	#6
Cool thread Nick, I think the relationship is strong, but i tend to think in terms of perception rather than attitude. For example, what is my perception when i am ignored by my close friend- i am emotional and become negative, let's say; however, i soon discover (knowledge) that he didn't recognize me, or that he never noticed me etc., My emotions then, are linked to what i know. If i lack knowledge about P but still make quick judgements about P i am liable and prone to make mistakes often- knowing more about P (facts) aids in arriving at true beliefs about the world; having these true beliefs we can say we have knowledge, having this knowledge affects our attitude, my attitude to my friend isn't hostile because i learned more, so i can be said to have knowledge, where before i was merely making an inference- a mistaken one. regards,
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 2680

Posted 06/05/06 - 08:48 AM:	#7
Of course the Buddha understands: we don't. Quite actually I think that Buddha understands, but you don't want to. You post a long quote describing "right speech" in an attempt to degrade the speech of others (who disagree with you, apparently). But when that same standard is held to you, you baulk and come up with all kinds of distinctions, myths and tales that keep you from being held to its standard. Its really not that hard. 1.Right speech is marked by other people listening more. 2.Nick complains that no one listens to his speech. 3.There must be something wrong with everyone but Nick. Its quite simple. If you truly believe the material you posted originally, that right speech creates harmony, that it is marked by others listening, that is a gift, if people are disharmonious, fail to listen to you, refuse your gift, perhaps, just maybe, just a tiny eensy-weensy bit, it may be your "gift" that is the problem, that it is not coming from the right place. It is exactly this use of wisdom-principles to condemn others, but insulate oneself that causes people to close their ears. But if it makes you comfortable to see yourself as the wise victim of a impure Age, go on, tell yourself that story.
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Nick_A
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 103

Posted 06/05/06 - 01:19 PM:	#8
Hi Litkey I like that avatar. Typical good Scottish Humor. How much does our attitude color our perception. In your example, your friend ignores you so you become negative. Is it natural to become automatically negative if ignored? I would say it differs with different people. Some may get negative and some not. So it seems our attitudes color our perception which in turn serves the tendency to reinforces our attitude. But my concern is what our attitude should be towards these habitual cycles? It seems that we can either block or become open. Each one can be a reflection of an attitude. Do we want to defend our preconceptions or are we willing to leave them at the door and become vulnerable at the expense of our self esteem defined by these pre-conceptions .It begins with an intellectual decision as to our aim. Our intellectual attitude it would seem must reflect this decision. But I am convinced it is much more difficult that normally imagined. Simone Weil in her early years was a student of the philosopher Emile-Auguste Chartier who became commonly known as Alain. He was very concerned for critical thinking which appealed to the young Simone. How she went from Alain to becoming a Christian mystic is a story in itself. A while ago I was trying to feel the reaction in myself of what he made me aware of. It was something that exists in-between what Descartes said and Simone commented on. "I think, therefore I am". Descartes I can, therefore I am. Simone Weil http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&s... : "To think is not to believe. … The intelligence it is what, in a man, remains always young. I see it moving, light like a butterfly; being posed on the frailest things without only making them fold. … When one believes, the stomach is interfered and all the body is stiffened; believing is like ivy on the tree. To think, it is completely other thing. One could say to think, it is to invent without believing. " (Emile Chartier, known as Alain/1868-1951/Matter of Norman of 1908/January 15, 1908) Now this is very interesting to me. He claims that as soon as we believe, we tend to block and the body tightens. Is Simone's "Can" possible without being restricted by an unfounded belief? This is so subtle and must admit I really had forgotten how really subtle it is until reading this. These automatic responses seem to mechanically help to create an attitude. I imagine this must have been one of the problems the founders of Stoicism became aware of. It became plain that negative emotions colored perception creating attitudes and everything together interfered with the purity and clarity of the intellect. So the goal became to become free of emotion. IMO it caused more harm than good because the value of positive emotion was lost as well. If you accept as I do from the metaphysical perspective that higher emotions do not originate with man attached to the earth but instead enter his presence as a form of help from above, Blocking it limits our philosophical perceptions So for me anyhow, this question of attitude is not as simple as it seems. But the first step seems to be intellectually deciding on our desired attitude. Do we want to justify ourselves or become open to the inner experience of the greater truths at the expense of our pre-conceptions?
Nick "All men are ready to die for what they love. They differ only through the level of the thing loved and the concentration or diffusion of their love. No one loves himself. Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Nick_A
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 103

Posted 06/05/06 - 01:44 PM:	#9
Hi Dunamis Grrrrrrrrr. I have no desire to degrade anyone. Who have I degraded? Does a different perspective automatically degrade someone? I'm not complaining that no one listens. My concern is with the truth of Plato's Cave allegory and The Buddhist parable of the Burning House. If they are true these assertions will be denied. I know I don't have to post the Cave Allegory for you but consider the Burning House http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts... Of course this is objectionable but it is precisely why the demagogue is as effective as he is: "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so that they believe they are as clever as he." Kraus Welcome to the world of politics. I am saying that these situations happen regardless of me. My concern is not for me. If it makes me the bad guy for not wanting to continue to think wonderful and agreeable thoughts while reciting platitudes, all well and good. But there are horrors in the world today that continue only because of this continued glorification of cave life or the burning house. I know it is politically incorrect to think this way but I will continue to do so and invite others to do as well. A good place to start is with an intellectual decision as to our attitude; if one wants to open themselves to the great ideas that suggest man has possibilities for more than reactive cave life.
Nick "All men are ready to die for what they love. They differ only through the level of the thing loved and the concentration or diffusion of their love. No one loves himself. Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 2680

Posted 06/05/06 - 02:11 PM:	#10
Nick_A wrote: have no desire to degrade anyone. Who have I degraded? Nick earlier wrote: I believe that attitude is very important and from what I've experienced on the Internet there seems to be a backlash under the name of philosophy that displays more and more an attitude of rudeness, condemnation, and pomposity initiating from some sort of defense mechanism that seeks self justification by spinning ideas around. You contrast this with "right speech", clearly implying that people of this "backlash" are not conducting "right speech" (but supposing that you are): you quoting wrote: In positive terms, right speech means speaking in ways that are trustworthy, harmonious, comforting, and worth taking to heart. When you make a practice of these positive forms of right speech, your words become a gift to others. In response, other people will start listening more to what you say, and will be more likely to respond in kind. In fact, your inability to examine your own motives, your own speech, by the very standards you hold others up to, makes your own speech suspect. The fact that you experience the speech of others as a "backlash" to instead of a product of your own speech, is exactly the kind of double speak, the exact kind of subtle "condemnation" and "pomposity" that keeps people "backlashing". Just look at your quote, just look at what it says. When you practice 'x', 'y' will happen. You then imagine that you are practicing 'x', but for some very odd reason 'y' isn't happening. There must be something wrong with everyone in the world. Edited by Dunamis on 06/05/06 - 02:25 PM
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.