Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
The Foundations of Critical Thinking 2017-04-07 05:52:35 Post No. 8810843
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The Foundations of Critical Thinking 2017-04-07 05:52:35 Post No. 8810843
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: feynman.jpg (15KB, 200x258px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 200x258px
Have you ever felt that you could comprehend the world better after learning, for example, thermodynamics, even in totally unrelated topics such as philosophy?
Have you ever noticed that patterns “of factual relationships” and the structures “of ideas/thought” seem to repeat themselves, at some fundamental level in science, philosophy, and even literature?
Have you encountered books or lectures that were substantial enough to affect your life by making “reality” more accessible, especially after thinking and applying its ideas? I’m talking about such an effect that it inserts “context” and “purpose” into your worldview, grounding yourself where one was formerly lost and inspiring yourself to investigate further with this new-found understanding.
-- --
I think there’s something underlying, unifying factor in all of these observations, and I think it would be an interesting project for /lit/ to tackle, for the sake of developing our own wisdom.
-- --
I hold the belief that there are certain fundamental “relationships”, for the lack of a better word, that unites concepts within disciplines and across all disciplines. This refers to both 1) the self-evident facts and the raison d’etre that grounds a discipline; and 2) the understanding that certain fundamental patterns—of logic, syntax, information, philosophy, mathematics, or whatever you want to call it—repeat themselves across all disciplines.
All investigations are a form of problem-solving, which means that unrelated disciplines such as psychology and literary theory share the same endgame of wresting some understanding from the world, with perhaps the possibility of some analogous relationships, though the building blocks may be of different qualities. I think that it’s plausible that there exists some basic, atomistic “units of understanding”, though I find it hard to define beyond intuitions.
-- --
>>
If you are left believing you have more answers than questions after learning then you are deep within Dunning–Kruger.
>>
>>8810843
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
>>
File: physicists then vs physicists now.png (3MB, 1716x1710px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 1716x1710px
>>8810845
Agreed. But I never stated that you'd suddenly have all the answers.
>I’m talking about such an effect that it inserts “context” and “purpose” into your worldview, grounding yourself where one was formerly lost and inspiring yourself to investigate further with this new-found understanding.
You start with few questions, because you don't know when to begin. Then you're provided a solid foundation that allows you to see the big picture, and then you're flooded with questions that need solving.
>>8810863
If your first thought wasn't pic related, then perhaps you're not capable of abstract thought. Have you never had a moment like "analytic philosophy made clear scientific writing easier" or "learning economics provided a new lens for understanding history"?
Back to >>/x/ for you!
>>
>I think it would be an interesting project for /lit/ to tackle,
yeah, maybe /LIT/ would be better off solving your pseudo-questions, you fucking retardw. stay away from brainlet philosophy.
SAGE
>>
>>8810947
jeez who pissed in your soup today
>>
HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US!
>>
>>8810946
That picture just proves that Anglos are retards.
>>
>>8812364
"I think that modern physics has definitely ruled in favor of Plato... my mind was formed by studying philosophy."
"The plurality that we perceive is only an appearance; it is not real. Vedantic philosophy... has sought to clarify it by a number of analogies..."
These people were suffering from hallucinations. Patterns that they noticed between philosophy and physics are nothing more than delusions.
>>
>>8810843
Not really, but I study math and it doesn't say anything about anything real. That being said, it has taught me to be a lot more cautious about my choice of words in conversation, which is something I notice humanities students also do a lot.
It also makes one very sensitive about syntax and logic, which I guess draws us closer to linguists.
That being said, I feel like it has mostly made me a lot less eloquent due to the language of proofs being very stereotyped and the vocabulary very limited. There's also the fact that most of the time, I don't even write full proofs (when people are thinking hard about something I notice they usually just doodle or write bits of sentences and computations to keep the logic straight while most of the reasoning is happening in their head)
>>
Science in the end is a branch of philosophy. It is a search for truth, and many of the theories that have gained acceptance scientifically have had their roots for thousands of years prior in philosophy. True deep science that has no alternate motives such as gaining wealth or political power is a practice that seeks to take the physical world and explain it in theory which is immaterial. Look at math for example, it is a study of a field that cannot be seen or felt, but that exists and shows only glimmers of itself in our world. True science has more in common with religion and striving to be closer with God than anything else. There is a reason that many of the great scientists in the past had such strong inclinations towards religion and mysticism. Tesla was deeply Christian, Newton studied hermeticism, and schrodinger believed in the advainta vedanta.
>>
>>8812370
>modern physics has definitely ruled in favor of Plato
I don't know when this was said, but it's truer all the time
>>
>>8810843
I think that using your brain makes it better
>>
>>8812512
except it isn't... Vedantic philosophy is truer and is probably the origin of most philosophy anyways.
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2