18. Re-defining philosophy and how we lost our muse

Mohr Philosophy Forum

Chat

mohr philosophy > Message Board > 18. Re-defining philosophy and how we lost our muse

Thread Tools

| Search This Thread

Author

Comment

Todd Park Mohr

01/05/06 at 04:52 PM

Reply with quote

Just getting an overview of philosophy again and what our purposes here are. Sorry I've had kind of a cold. We are going to keep our thread in hand of Confucius and the Greeks, but turning towards the modern era and the study of existentialism. We restate our introduction here and present the argument for getting back our muse, developing a philosophy which is both right and left brained. Hope you all enjoy... now I'm going to take some medicine and go back to bed.

duncan

01/05/06 at 05:33 PM

Reply with quote

I didn't know lead singers were aloud to get sick. Especially on tour!

Get some rest. Hope you get well soon.

By the way, I'll be seeing you guys at the Vic in a few weeks. Really looking forward to it.

Now off to download the podcast.

duncan

01/05/06 at 11:14 PM

Reply with quote

Alright... so, one thing that I am curious about is this debate between Socrates and Aristotle on the importance of knowledge. Socrates, who says that the process of learning and accessing knowledge is the source of all human virtue - Aristotle, in response, says that just because one knows what courage is, doesn't make him courageous.

First, Todd, I agree with your response that, in some respect, that knowledge is what makes courage possible - without knowledge one just simply reacts.

This is true, I feel, that knowledge is absolutely necessary for one to be courageous. However, knowledge is just the foundation that equips us with the choice. And doesn't the courage come from the choice itself - not simply the knowledge?

So, I suspect that what Aristotle was getting at is that a man equipped with knowledge can still choose not to do that which is courageous. So, therefore the courage doesn't lie in knowledge alone. It lies in the choice. Choosing to do that which is courageous in the face of, and knowledge of, the risks involved.

So, then, it is knowledge which makes courage possible. It is also knowledge which makes cowardice possible. It is knowledge which makes virtue possible. And it is knowledge which makes evil possible as well. Is it not?

Is this the point you were making? I just wanted to expand on the idea a little and make sure I understood it completely.

Todd Park Mohr

01/06/06 at 12:36 PM

Reply with quote

This is an excellent opening for a tremendous and productive philosophical dialogue! This question will be hovering like Aristotle’s ghost throughout the arguments of the existentialists. What are the limits of knowledge and the claims of knowledge? I’m happy to jump aboard Socrates’ point of view to see how far it goes, where it falls apart and why. Aristotle I believe is making a quite sensible and seemingly obvious objection. He is pointing to “character” or the nature of some “chooser” as you point out – which is at liberty to choose in spite of knowledge. But this chooser doesn’t seem to be at first glance constituted of knowledge. We all have a strong impression of the world generally, that it must be made of stuff, and this stuff, this matter is dumb, non-knowledge material. Maybe under the spell of this impression we think of ourselves as this material, non-intelligent stuff, with an intelligence superimposed upon the matter. The stuff determines and constitutes our character, the chooser, in the form of DNA proteins assembled in such an order as to make us who we are, with our preferences, tendencies, and so on. Our western habit is to view the body as a material vehicle, and the driver as being the intelligent chooser. So we have a long history of the mind or spirit/body dualism.

A number of forces have challenged this model. I think modern physics, string theory is in a way reducing matter to information. Looking for the constituents of the hard stuff, science is discovering that nothing is hard – but rather it is energy. But it seems to be pointing even further at a well, kind of knowledge that constitutes the universe. String theorists and quantum theorists are viewing subatomic particles as “letters” which are determined by a kind of vibration. They are beginning to use terms like “music” to describe the foundations of our material universe. Moreover, this crazy subatomic world is responsive to observation as in the uncertainty principle(unobserved it’s a wave, observed it’s a particle). So it seems less dumb and more like knowledge, more like intelligence all the time.
But back to philosophy there is a basis to ask the question – are modes of being really modes of knowledge? Is a virtue really a kind of knowledge, and vice an ignorance or a lack of knowledge? If we consider courage and cowardice again, can we say that courage is a kind of knowing which prescribes certain actions? Not just knowing the circumstances, the dangers, the consequences of action or non action – but a knowing of one’s deeper nature – maybe one’s eternal nature, one’s temporal nature, or one’s nature as connected and unified with the other. Perhaps this knowledge is the essence of courage itself and the lack of it the essence of cowardice.
If we are to find and establish this chooser, where is it, of what is it made, and what is the criterion of its choice? If a chooser just chooses what is best or most advantageous, what part of the choice is not knowledge? What part of that choice can be considered “free”? The criterion for choosing 1000$ over 10$ is really just an algorithm, an evaluating mode which is itself knowledge of the greater and the less. Perhaps our choosing nature proceeds with absolute necessity from this evaluating algorithm. If this is true is there a chooser? How far is character a mode of knowing – the specific knowledge which makes one’s individual experience one’s own – to have come from that particular mother at that particular time, to inhabit and experience that particular body and so on. These are nature verses nurture kinds of arguments and are circular and well traveled. But the questions are alarming and pointed.
But when we try to find the chooser – the perceiver, we end in a roomful of mirrors. One in which there is knowledge, reflectivity, and presumably a knower. I think there is a radical tradition found in presocratic Greece, the philosophies of India and China, Gnostic Christianity, and the more modern expressions of the existentialists which share a set of expanded claims for knowledge as that which constitutes everything, and a quest to get at the problem of the knower, the chooser, the self. The Buddha made a statement about death after life which I found quite startling “reasoning has ended, knowledge remains”. It is similar to the statement attributed to Jesus, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” along with the opening statements of the Gospel of St. John, “In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word was with God and the word was God.” This notion of logos would be taken up rigorously by Hiedegger and others who would express a view that language itself is that which creates.
Now I realize these statements are counterintuitive and rashly incomplete at this point, but I think here is an introductory sense of what the concerns and claims of the existentialists/presocratics/Indians/Gnostics were. I hope you will all continue to raise every objection and offer vigorous tests to these ideas. This is our best bet at shaking loose new and helpful insights.

Emily

01/06/06 at 02:43 PM

Reply with quote

You have woken up late,

lost and perplexed

but don't rush to your books

looking for knowledge.

Pick up the flute instead and

let your heart play.

-Rumi

Todd Park Mohr

01/06/06 at 08:02 PM

Reply with quote

Well, yeah. Now that's the kind of knowledge I'm lookin' for!

jen

01/06/06 at 09:22 PM

Reply with quote

I tend to focus on discussing the issues related to philosophy and then I merge those thoughts with the wealth of informational scaffolding that Todd and others have so kindly shared. I understand and agree with the idea that no one can borrow your experience. Two people looking at the same beautiful image (such as that lake shot on your blog...loved that and your dog) might both agree that it is beautiful but disagree on the degree or depth of beauty based on what they have each personally experienced. I do like to think of a separate shared meaning that is equally as important; I guess the idea of "shared meaning" ties into how we form our culture although I can't say I share the same views on who some of our cultural icons are today! When two people share something-a conversation, meal, an event, art, nature-there is something more than just personal truth. I am curious if our own personal truths change due to relationships, connections or experiences with others.

Philosophy in the true sense should be a dialogue (which is why I enjoy this forum and the blog immensely), but so much of the time it deals with the individual. Naturally, it starts with the individual but so many of the issues philosophy needs to discuss deal with society as a whole. I think one glaring problem with our society today is the lack of dialogue; meaningful discourse that is shared among friends or complete strangers. For me personally, I glean so much information when I have a conversation or read someone’s writing or share in their art. My interactions and experiences with others shape my thoughts and who I am. I’m just wondering how that fits into the philosophical realm. Am I making any sense? Sorry for the rambling!

duncan

01/06/06 at 09:48 PM

Reply with quote

Wow. My head is spinning with all the possibility wrapped up in that whole response, Todd.

First, I must admit that I am not studied in philosophy - at all. This podcast is my first introduction to it what-so-ever. Sure, I know who all the big players are from general knowledge and education. But I have no pool of resources to rely on for any of my responses or to form any of my opinions. Which may be one reason I have hesitated to contribute any responses in regard to the philosophy side of this forum/blog. I was intimidated, to be honest. But, what the heck... I have to start somewhere. Why not just jump right in, right?

I am going to have to go and sit on this a bit. But I have many questions floating in my head already. I will cook up another response shortly.

jen

01/06/06 at 10:30 PM

Reply with quote

Duncan- I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to philosophy and I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one that feels completely understudied in this category! I think your comments (and definitely all your art postings) add a lot. I'm just hoping others can fill in the gaps for me too.

Emily

01/07/06 at 10:50 AM

Reply with quote

#10

"Not just knowing the circumstances, the dangers, the consequences of action or non action – but a knowing of one’s deeper nature – maybe one’s eternal nature, one’s temporal nature, or one’s nature as connected and unified with the other. Perhaps this knowledge is the essence of courage itself and the lack of it the essence of cowardice."

*****
This is stuff I love .... free will and the anguish that is the other side of the coin. Nothing between me, my choices, my past, my future. Or worse than nothingness, just me!

More Rumi (you can tell what book I had with me at work yesterday

)

If you are eager to be nothing
before you know who you are,
You rob yourself of your true being.
Until you understand NOTHINGNESS
you will never know true faith.

Todd Park Mohr

01/07/06 at 12:01 PM

Reply with quote

#11

I need to apologize if I get too technical, hairbrained, and difficult. I've been juggling a number of correspondances related to philosopohy and some at a fairly technical level, alongside reading for the first time Martin Hiedegger's "Being and Time", which is also a very technical, difficult affair. The language running through my mind probably wouldn't be fun reading for anyone. Anyone feeling intimidated or locked out is the opposite of what I want in this forum. I get disoriented as to who my audience is and how I should be accommodating their perspectives and concerns. This is a tough balance for me, and everyone should bear in mind I'm just beginning at this.

This philosophy blog and podcast/forum is a crazy new experiement to my life! Prior to September, I had never delivered a speech, never written on the subject of philosophy. I was a landlocked wierdo atop a stack of books I couldn't explain. My friends and family are awesome individuals of very smart, wonderful people - but no one I had ever met was interested say in Schopenhauer, and had read him. It's a little off the beaten path. My journey through philosophy was something which had to stay stuck inside me, even though it was chewing through most of my brain cells. Many of my friends and family don't even know I'm doing this!

When I started niavely I thought this whole thing was a shot in the dark, a speck in the void of the internet. So I thought, well, I'll just be who I am and use this blog to log my unedited creative life, my ideas, thinking that at least by doing so I'll make progress in being able to articulate my own philosophy, art, poetry and all the stuff that isn't appropriate for me to drag into my musical career.

I didn't think about what would happen if it gained an audience. Then new layers of questions have to be asked. What is my purpose here? What am I trying to convey? Who is my audience? What do they want? Are they going to effect my honesty? Is this blog a trash heap for Todd's head, a course in philosophy, a trial for a new kind of expression, a preliminary excercize for articulating my own views, my own philosophy? All the above?

E-mails came in with increasing heat. All kinds of encouragement and questions from all over the world. I began to sense the overwhelming nature of the subject matter. At times I feel like I'm in way over my head. What the hell was I thinking? I'm not a philosophy major or PHD. In fact I've read frighteningly little that has been written since the 19th century! At the same time, I've experienced great joy in finding others who are interested in philosophy, feeling like I have something to share and learn. I also have become more and more convinced that philosophy has something really seriously important to offer our society, our culture, and politics. I've become commited to exploring how I can do my little part to try to make philosophy accessible, inviting, relevant. Maybe my affection for the subject can be of use to others. But I am in no way seeking to be a professor, a guru, a preacher, or a self help dude. I'm just singing a song while improvising. I'm a fellow learner.

In addition to what has gone on here - the tremendous dialogue and wonderful group of people who are sharing and contributing - I set out combing my space, doing philosophy searches, Nietzshe and Schopenhauer searches, for example, to find others to reach out to. Since myspace is predominantly young people, I didn't know what I would find. Amazingly they are out there and happenning - I mean really young people who can tell me a thing or two about Schopenhauer or Hiedegger and beyond! I'm thinking about how wonderful it is that these kinds of connections can form. Not long ago I resigned to be landlocked, and thought my philosophical life would go down like Spinoza's - an unread book locked in a desk at my death. I was resigned to a double life, the public trivial life of entertainment and earning a living, and a private life of philosophy.

These last months have changed all that, and now I'm trying to hang on for dear life! Trying to make the most of the opportunity and see where it can lead. It's scary. Its like finding a new horse to ride, not knowing what its capable of and where it is going. At first I'm going to spend a lot of time on my ass. I try to take care not to put my own limits and preconditions on it - to stay open and spontanious. I want to keep myself open to others, both learning from them and allowing them to shape my direction. But still I want to be who I am and follow my heart, developing my own voice and philosophy. I don't even know what the next podcast is going to be about, and often times a comment or discussion can change the direction completely. In other words, everthing is in a delightful chaos, and I hope you all can be patient with me should I seem erratic, or not a fit leader, or my opinions and general directions take an unfavorable or incomprehensible turn.

jen

01/07/06 at 01:11 PM

Reply with quote

#12

Todd-

Your honesty and candidness with your personal search and discovery in the world of philosophy is refreshing and more than welcome. In fact, that is one of the reasons that I find the blog so enjoyable. What you share-whether personal or factual-is unedited, authentic, real and 100% you. To me that is extremely courageous and encouraging. Transitioning from the field of education to being a mom has been an internal battle and I struggled with the lack of "intellectual" challenges in my life. Enter philosophy and I am a new woman. A subject that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole is now not only interesting but accessible. The bonus is the people I have "met" through the blog, forums or chats who make the subject even more intriguing.

Personally, I don't think you need to worry about your audience. Your perspective, thoughts and journey through the subject has encouraged others(at least me) to investigate our own personal philosophy and its application to the world. My prime example being Confucius. The podcast peaked my curiosity and encouraged me to read and study more because your enthusiasm for the subject is contagious. So, keep riding that horse and people will trot, gallop or sit in a pasture but they are on the trail or blazing their own and that is what is important.

duncan

01/07/06 at 03:11 PM

Reply with quote

#13

No need to apologize. I admire what you are doing. It's inspiring, actually. That's why I'm here. So, whatever direction this all goes, I am along for the ride.

Cindy

01/07/06 at 09:36 PM

Reply with quote

#14

All I can say Todd, is I’m happy you started this “crazy new experiment.” You are following your bliss and taking us on a ride that (for me personally, anyway) I probably wouldn’t be on at this time in my life. I was at a spiritual impasse and this has transformed my way of thinking. I have begun to rid the “garbage” in my life and replaced it with the things I got away from in my adult life. For Christmas, I got the dvd series “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell (interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS) and it truly is a life changing, eye opener to anyone who is seeking the divine, the truth. Campbell easily articulates so many ideas that I knew were true, but never knew how to put into words. I find your podscasts do the same for me. I have gotten back on the path of learning after I had fallen off for a while. Yes I feel like my head is swirling with questions, and some of this is over my head but I figure I am just starting out in this quest and have the power to be born a second time. This sounds egotistical, but if we awaken ourselves it enables us to see the divine the world around us.

Brian

01/07/06 at 10:02 PM

Reply with quote

#15

Cindy - That series with Campbell was great and I have had the same experience here. Philosophy and different spiritual questions have dominated my thoughts since reading Aldous Huxley in high school (1987.) I've very much enjoyed the podcasts and the forum because it's a delight to hear someone communicate their thoughts so well.

Todd - Thank you for hosting this and sharing your ideas with us but, please don't call your musical life trivial. It's meant a great deal to many people and your ability to bring so much joy to so many people is anything but trivial.

Previous Thread | Next Thread

Page 1 of 2 1 | 2 >

Bookmarks

Digg

del.icio.us

StumbleUpon

Google