Philosopher's craft

[axj]

Are Aristotle categories the best? May there be other? Are there other?

To which category should I assign "knowledge"?

Maybe you could clarify for what purpose you need these categories.

 

[Michal]

For example (not mine):
1. So called vaccine for covid19:
Producers in product data sheet categorised it as medical product. Medical product is more general category than vaccine and vaccine belongs to this category. Orthopedic bed and corrective glasses also belong to this category. While producer does not categorise this product as vaccine then whole fight to vaccinate or not looses it's reason.

2. Russia invades Ukraine and territory of a state:
were borders between Russia and Ukraine settled and approved by international milieu before the conflict? If not then on which territory is war? Discussion of war between those two countries must come to settling borders otherwise makes no sense.

 

[axj]

Those are practical examples, but what you asked about was much more general. What practical use is there in how we categorize "knowledge", for example?

 

[Ricardo]

" To which category should I assign "knowledge"? " Michal

Since there's always that which observes the observed , being ? ( somewhat in jest )

 

[Michal]

Hi axj, it is just exercise but reflecting the problem. Problem is analogical to taxonomy in biology. To understand life on earth in scientific way taxonomy played some role in establishing analogies and differences and pave the way for more precise use of collected material.

A bit from other side but maybe this may show how I think:
In cybernetics for example - study of control - there are only two problems:
1. Cognitive problems - to know, to understand the reality
2. Decision problems - to change the reality
In cognitive problems there are three steps:
1. Exploration - what is there?
2. Definition / classification - how is it? similarities, differences, criteria of segregation
3. Explication - why and what for, what are relation to others, how it works

So coming back to which category would be "knowledge" it is question of definition/classification to category. It is not about word only. It is about the word relation to reality. Word "knwoledge" shows some abstract? or a real thing?
Yes Ricardo, is it a substance or being, existing independently from human or is it maybe relation of a human to reality?

How we understand reality/see reality is some function of our being.
But may we separate learning how to be from our language relation to reality. May we learn reality without language? How would we then convey anything? I am not able to use telepathy unfortunately.
For proper use of language each notion, word should be precise. How otherwise may we communicate?

 

[axj]

The problem of philosophers in general seems to be that they are trying to answer metaphysical questions by just using the mind (lower mental center), while metaphysical answers or knowledge can only be gained through doing the Work.

Which is why a lot of philosophy is empty speculation with little or no practical use to anyone - unless a philosopher is able to tap into something deeper within himself (higher centers). But that makes him more of a mystic and not just a philosopher, since we are on the topic of classification.

 

[Ricardo]

" I am not able to use telepathy unfortunately " , perhaps you are , just not cleared enough of the athanor eh :) , axj is pretty much on point (imo) , philosophers may love knowledge , but it's not like they usually share it .

 

[Cosmos]

I couldn‘t find a more fitting thread, so I put it here:

I personally find the tendency of Philosophers and philosophical minded people highly irritating to make up words as they go and be very wordy and complicated about what they want to say.

I think Caesar had very important things to say about clear language that I ascribe to fully. Here is what Grok said about it after I asked “What did Caesar say about using simple language?“:

Julius Caesar valued clarity and simplicity in language above all else, especially in writing and speech intended to persuade or command.

The most famous quote attributed to him on this topic comes from his criticism of overly ornate or complicated prose. According to ancient sources (particularly quoted later by writers like Cicero and Fronto), Caesar reportedly said:“Avoid an unusual word as you would a reef.”
(Latin: “Ut tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum.”)

This line appears in a letter fragment preserved by Aulus Gellius and others, where Caesar was advising on rhetorical style. He believed that obscure, rare, or affected words were dangerous obstacles to understanding—just like hidden reefs are to a sailor.

Effective communication, in his view (especially for military orders, political speeches, and historical writing), required plain, direct, and familiar language that everyone could grasp immediately.

His own writing style in Commentarii de Bello Gallico (The Gallic War) reflects this perfectly: it is famously clear, straightforward, and unadorned—so much so that it became a model prose for centuries of Latin students.

In short: Caesar championed simple, precise, and accessible language as a tool of power and clarity. Fancy words were not just unnecessary—they were risky.

Here is what Grok said after I asked; “Do philosopher’s tend to make up words as they go quite above the everage range? Do they tend to explaining/suggesting things unnecessarily complicated and wordy in general and in specific by making up words?“:

https://x.com/i/grok/share/u0WhOFWY4yLT7aNqxv2PSgq2s

In addition to what Caesar said and suggested about it, here are just a couple of things that annoy me on top of that as well:

- I reckon, even if you are into philosophy yourself that you will find it pretty hard to follow or understand an argument Philosopher’s make. Now, just imagine how much harder that is for (most) people outside of that field!

- Often I find myself trying to remember and make sense of one of the many words or phrases they either have just made up out of thin air and/or are complicated words/phrases that are not straight forward in regards to their meaning at all. Even if it is a word that I have heard many times (and just as often looked up trying hard to remember it) it just doesn’t seem to want to stick in my mind in regards to its meaning and possibly rightfully/justifiably so! What that means is that it makes it very hard to even follow/understand an argument that spans just one sentence especially if that word is then often followed up by a number of other “nonsensical“ words/phrases.

- It seems to me that a high IQ is often required to follow what Philosophers say. But, as we know, high IQ in and of itself doesn’t help much and most people just aren’t equipped with such fast/complicated “computing“ power.

 

[T.C.]

It seems to me that a high IQ is often required to follow what Philosophers say. But, as we know, high IQ in and of itself doesn’t help much and most people just aren’t equipped with such fast/complicated “computing“ power.

I’ll offer a few points:

1) Depends on the philosopher

2) Erroneous appreciation of philosophy

3) We have been spoiled by reading Laura

4) Technical language in compartmentalisation of specialist fields

On point 1), it’s a lot easier to read and understand some philosophers than others. It depends what areas of philosophy they’re talking about, whether they write systemically or meander around from thought to thought, and what era they wrote in. If you take someone like Heidegger who invented a lot of terms, then even though it may take a while to grasp the meaning of what he’s talking about, it does provide an explanatory framework for understanding our relationship to reality or interpreting works of literature.

On point 2) I think people look at the field of philosophy and think that it’s just some people talking about ideas, and since they are a person, and they have ideas, then philosophy should be accessible to them and all they have to do is read it and they’ll understand it.

I don’t think those same people would look at brain surgery or astrophysics and just assume they could do it, or if they did, they’d find out pretty quickly that not everyone has the aptitude for working in fields like that.

Philosophy is hard and complicated and it does take a great intellect (and great teachers too) in order to be able to grasp and understand the different systems and ideas put forward by the most influential philosophers. Yes, it can be annoying, frustrating and disheartening to come to a realisation that you simply don’t have the natural abilities required to do something. But it takes all kinds of people to make a world.

On point 3), our group are in a weird situation, because regardless of our individual capacities, the way Laura writes and presents ideas and information makes it possible for pretty much anyone to understand concepts that explain a great deal about human life and the nature of our reality. And so we may think of ourselves as actually being ‘smarter’ than we really are. Okay, none of us are complete retards, but there’s a difference between being intelligent and being academic. And I believe that it is having a talent in being academic that is required to work in philosophy. You don’t need to be academic to read Laura. She’s the academic and she breaks everything down and puts the pieces back together for us.

4) It’s pretty well known that all fields have their own specialised terms. On the one hand, they’re born of necessity; on the other, it keeps laymen out of the ivory towers of these fields and increases control and job security for those at the top of them.

 

[Ricardo]

I´ll offer my 2x cents , there´s also 2x further issues Philosophy for most part ignores humans being 3x centered , so Ontology and gnoseology even if highly "refined" end up being unbalanced tools for lack of a better term , then there´s context which further makes it unwieldy since higher centers are unknown in any "strictly intelectual" effort since historical background is mostly un-accounted and for implicated reasons therein, this also includes and excludes OPs.