Ok: My idea of philosophy, or whatever word you want to use that matches this concept, is some category of thinking that asks about abstract stuff with reasoning, but deeply takes into account *the thing doing the asking*; I want to see a norm where meta-awareness
Conversation
Replying to
is included in every facet of this. What does it 'feel' like to be asking that question? What's the sensation of the concepts grinding or sliding through your brain and fitting with each other? This back-door information about the concepts is just as crucial as figuring out how
1
13
the concepts interact with each other themselves. This is why I think good philosophers should also meditate - to get a better grasp on the actual felt sense of moving around categories.
Secondly, I want clarity, which comes from being hyper aware of the way concepts are
1
10
settling inside you. I want norms that discuss concepts *from the felt sense angle* - norms that treat words as clothes to put on or shed, as brief tools to do a bit of work and then be discarded. I want us to stop getting so worked up about proper definitions.
1
10
Because truth is not in the words, truth is in *feeling concepts slide into a beautiful orientation.*
I want philosophy that isn't afraid to address the self and experiential role in what's being handled (as "things are made of atoms" does). I want something that can both
2
19
slip into the frame of material reality, and slip out of it. I want philosophy that strives to identify the frames being used and to wield them smoothly. I want this to be subject to nothing, to observe all. I want this to hunt down and stare everything directly in the face.
3
23
Replying to
What you say reminds me of Susan Blackmore, who has always taken very seriously the first person experience to complete the pretended objectivity of the 3rd person experience of science google.com/search?client=
Replying to
Stuff that asks for abstract thinking and reasoning is STEM. Philosophy ain't that.
Replying to
Interested in following your thoughts but thrown by all those asterisks & single/double quotes. Who are you quoting? And why is FEEL presented as ‘feel’? Not an academic, but in criticism I’ve found this a fudging device, like: “I know this word is loaded so now let me use it.”
Show more replies