Critical Thinking

[Eudaimonist]

Critical thinking is absolutely indispensable; it allows you to question your own life, and ultimately gain that eudaimonic sense of happiness that comes with wisdom.

This may explain the rise of such groups as the Fellowship of Reason, which provide adult education classes that let people study and discuss ideas, and learn how to engage in critical thinking, or sharpen those skills. There truly is a sense of "happiness", or something similar, to tackling the difficult questions of life and coming up with answers one may feel confident about. It results in personal integration, balance or "centeredness", and peace of mind.

I'd rather have this happiness than live till I'm eighty. Science is subordinate to the qualitative life that philosophy (and, yes, religion) can allow.

Yes, me too. That is an explicit spiritual value of mine.

I agree that, when it comes to life, quality is more important than quantity (or duration).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ah yes, being wrong with style is much better than just being wrong

You gotten it!

And, btw, did anyone notice that Lovecraft got it wrong?

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

That clearly should be mglw'nagl, not mglw'nafh. In the past-future-time-travel-to-present tense, you need that ending.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[meebs]

Yes, I would have liked to take such a course, if it had been offered. I suppose I came close by taking a Philosophy of Science course. It wasn't really the same thing, though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think both would compliment each other. Essential in theoretical or applied sciences.

 

[funyun]

Science is subordinate to the qualitative life that philosophy (and, yes, religion) can allow.

In my view the two are inseparably linked. In order to understand science you have to understand philosophy (especially the most basic philosophy, epistemology). Science without philosophy is futile, meaningless, and without foundation; philosophy without science is irrelevant, ignorant, and incomplete.

And for me personally truth and the pursuit of it are tied in with quality of life. I consider myself an existentialist but one of the things that really grates on me about the big existentialists is their insistence that one should shrug off truth in favor of happiness or flourishing in life. I not only think that's a false dichotomy but I think if it were a true dichotomy it's a case of-- to turn the tables on postmodern existentialists-- self-deception. Plus nihilistic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In my view the two are inseparably linked. In order to understand science you have to understand philosophy (especially the most basic philosophy, epistemology). Science without philosophy is futile, meaningless, and without foundation; philosophy without science is irrelevant, ignorant, and incomplete.

I wouldn't say that philosophy without science is irrelevant, but it certainly is lacking.

And for me personally truth and the pursuit of it are tied in with quality of life. I consider myself an existentialist but one of the things that really grates on me about the big existentialists is their insistence that one should shrug off truth in favor of happiness or flourishing in life. I not only think that's a false dichotomy but I think if it were a true dichotomy it's a case of-- to turn the tables on postmodern existentialists-- self-deception. Plus nihilistic.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[funyun]

I wouldn't say that philosophy without science is irrelevant, but it certainly is lacking.

Yeah, I think "irrelevant" might not be quite the right word, at least colloquially. What I mean is one can be led in the "wrong direction" metaphysically if one ignores what science has discovered. So, "sans science, philosophy can lead to irrelevant conclusions", not "sans science, philosophy itself is irrelevant".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yeah, I think "irrelevant" might not be quite the right word, at least colloquially. What I mean is one can be led in the "wrong direction" metaphysically if one ignores what science has discovered. So, "sans science, philosophy can lead to irrelevant conclusions", not "sans science, philosophy itself is irrelevant".

Thanks for the clarification. I agree.


eudaimonia,

Mark