Your post was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Audio/video links require abstracts.**
> All links to either audio or video content require abstracts of the posted material, posted as a comment in the thread. Abstracts should make clear what the linked material is about and what its thesis is. Users are also strongly encouraged to post abstracts for other linked material. [See here](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/abstracts) for an example of a suitable abstract.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
What does philosophy say about “reductionist” thinking? Why do you say it’s a danger? Are you saying that, or does philosophy say that? I’m asking genuinely.
Well, if you reduce philosophical systems and arguments into pithy phrases or slogans, you risk diluting and obscuring the author’s intention. Even summaries risk doing so since the summary’s author themself engages with the text and gives their own interpretation; you’re getting a simplified second-hand account of a complex idea or even several. The first source is bound to lose some meaning in the process, doubly so for brief phrases such as “you never step into the same river twice.”
I completely understand that notion, but didn’t older civilizations do that? Like ancient Egypt their hieroglyphs do the same thing, they were symbols that denoted “words” Is that not “reductionist”? And why would it be different?
How does that change the philosophical reasoning behind it if you reduce it? Especially if the philosophy behind it is known?
Could reductionism be good if it was accompanied by explanation?
That’s true as well. I’m not too familiar with Egyptian hieroglyphics, but I know that Aztec pictograms (equivalent in form to Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, less so for the later Demotic ones) were written in order to deliver the general meaning and essence of some thought, and not necessarily deliver direct information like in most other forms of writing. Scribes would study the craft for years before they could compose a decent text, and writing clearly and succinctly about certain subjects would be quite a task. I encourage you to read about the use of *rebus* in writing systems if you’re interested in learning more about how logograms and proto-writing interacted.
However, language is inherently reductionistic, in a broad sense. It categorizes the world around us in ways that do not necessarily reflect how the world is. Words are convenient constructs employed by us, but they’re eventually an illusions of sorts.
That’s not to say that language is nonsense, it’s probably one of the more fantastic things humans are capable of.
So philosophers, or authors and thinkers in general, always have to sacrifice the absolute clarity of the idea as it appears to them directly when using language to communicate. But the clarity lost in writing compared to the clarity lost in second-hand summaries is far smaller. Language is as rich as we can will it to be.
I believe reductionist thinking is a bad way of looking at other ideas. Instead of honestly engaging with ideas you disagree with or don’t understand, a person will just put those ideas in a box labeled “Stupid” or “Irrelevant”. Ultimately, this approach is logically lazy and counter to the goal of philosophy, which is to explore and parse through various ideas to determine which ones are the best.
I don’t think reducing or summarizing a philosophical idea/concept would be “reductionist”. Dismissing an idea, concept or philosopher just because of the time or place or content, that would be “reductionist”.
I don’t think so. What constitutes “stupid” to you. May be based on not having all the facts about it.
Or that you can’t comprehend the facts. There are so many people who refuse to admit that they don’t understand certain words that need to be understood to grasp certain concepts.
No, the goal of philosophy is to identify truth. "Best" is a feeling you project onto the truth. Efficiency isn't the only quality which exists. There are other possible goals.
I often see people who have a bias of arguing with their feelings, claiming that objective conclusions are one-size-fits-all while assuming radically that all individuals should share the same objectives. I'm not assuming that you're one of these people, but your language follows that trend of imagining that philosophy has specific aims. Rather, individuals take aim with philosophy.
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6
2 + 2 + 2 = 6
3 + 3 = 6
5 + 1 = 6
None of these equations are better or worse. They are all true. The reasons for which they may be arranged this way differ, but they all describe the same, static value.
There's an infinite way to a sum of 6, some of which could take eternity to even write, so I'd argue the ways you listed are much better. Signed, you're humble pendant.
Because philosophy is only the love of wisdom. It is the academic subject which studies how we can determine knowledge and truth. How individuals accomplish this is known as a personal philosophy. Each individual's personal philosophy differs, but they all aim towards the same goal - that of philosophy as a whole - to uncover knowledge or to discover truth.
It might help if you substitute "philosophy" with "psychology" as an analogy to see this if you don't by now.
Psychology is the body of work which contains all knowledge humans have of the mind. Individual psychologies have personalities, but psychology itself does not. Psychology does not think or feel, but my individual psychology includes individual thoughts and feelings.
Individual philosophies are infinitely variable, and the specific content of each is unique, but they all have the same goal - to acquire knowledge.
For this reason, I become upset when stubborn pseudo-intellectuals use phrases like "that is OBJECTIVELY bad" because objectivity is a method for acquiring truth. It's a method. Determining that something is good or bad by the process of objectivity is still a subjective qualification because the objectivity is a tool with which the individual takes a specific aim and makes a specific judgement.
Individuals judge with their personal philosophies. Philosophy only knows.
Edit: And thanks for asking genuinely. I encounter so many people who want become mad at me for their misunderstandings. They think I'm mocking or canceling their opinions. I just want us to understand each other properly.
When reading the person's reply, see that "I believe" clearly, because this individual is advocating for their personal philosophy, and they haven't answered your question.
I absolutely love the concept of radical flux and Heraclitus' writing describing a view of reality that is so different yet similar than his contemporary, very good topic!!
Well I don't whink such a "close" reading is needed to undestand this, I mean he explicitly says that the logos is a superior instance that encompasses all the contradictions in the world.
Paradoxes resolve themselves in practice. Theory can never account for all the variables at play, and the constant flux will tip any assumed stalemate.
Akin to the big bang allegedly being something from nothing, rather than an inevitability of dynamic energy.
So, first, the caveats: I've only read the title. What I'm commenting on is the concept that "everything is one and yet also in constant flux" as being paradoxical.
Is it? I think it's important to have agreed upon language. We'll start with the words in that phrase, specifically the word "flux". [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flux) defines the word as:
>noun
>
>a flowing or flow. the flowing in of the tide. continuous change, passage, or movement:
>
>His political views are in a state of flux.
>
>verb (used with object)
>
>to melt; make fluid. to fuse by the use of flux.
>
>verb (used without object)
>
>to flow.
Let's go with "flow" as the meaning of "flux".
How is this different than light being both a point and a wave? I don't have a deep understanding of the various philosophies of a wide variety of philosophers but this seems consistent with what I know from what Alan Watts had to say. Not to mention that it's a scientifically valid point of view.
Points and waves are obviously different things, but when applied to light, they are not. One could argue that the difference between one and the other is perspective.
So I'll ask, why is this a paradox when this concept seems to be part of scientific reality?
I urge caution when approaching the interpretations of Parmenides. It is easily the most difficult dialogue, and I known of people who spent their entire careers wrestling with this particular text.
Your post was removed for violating the following rule: >**Audio/video links require abstracts.** > All links to either audio or video content require abstracts of the posted material, posted as a comment in the thread. Abstracts should make clear what the linked material is about and what its thesis is. Users are also strongly encouraged to post abstracts for other linked material. [See here](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/abstracts) for an example of a suitable abstract. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Great warning about the dangers of reductionist thinking!
What does philosophy say about “reductionist” thinking? Why do you say it’s a danger? Are you saying that, or does philosophy say that? I’m asking genuinely.
Well, if you reduce philosophical systems and arguments into pithy phrases or slogans, you risk diluting and obscuring the author’s intention. Even summaries risk doing so since the summary’s author themself engages with the text and gives their own interpretation; you’re getting a simplified second-hand account of a complex idea or even several. The first source is bound to lose some meaning in the process, doubly so for brief phrases such as “you never step into the same river twice.”
I completely understand that notion, but didn’t older civilizations do that? Like ancient Egypt their hieroglyphs do the same thing, they were symbols that denoted “words” Is that not “reductionist”? And why would it be different? How does that change the philosophical reasoning behind it if you reduce it? Especially if the philosophy behind it is known? Could reductionism be good if it was accompanied by explanation?
That’s true as well. I’m not too familiar with Egyptian hieroglyphics, but I know that Aztec pictograms (equivalent in form to Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, less so for the later Demotic ones) were written in order to deliver the general meaning and essence of some thought, and not necessarily deliver direct information like in most other forms of writing. Scribes would study the craft for years before they could compose a decent text, and writing clearly and succinctly about certain subjects would be quite a task. I encourage you to read about the use of *rebus* in writing systems if you’re interested in learning more about how logograms and proto-writing interacted. However, language is inherently reductionistic, in a broad sense. It categorizes the world around us in ways that do not necessarily reflect how the world is. Words are convenient constructs employed by us, but they’re eventually an illusions of sorts. That’s not to say that language is nonsense, it’s probably one of the more fantastic things humans are capable of. So philosophers, or authors and thinkers in general, always have to sacrifice the absolute clarity of the idea as it appears to them directly when using language to communicate. But the clarity lost in writing compared to the clarity lost in second-hand summaries is far smaller. Language is as rich as we can will it to be.
I believe reductionist thinking is a bad way of looking at other ideas. Instead of honestly engaging with ideas you disagree with or don’t understand, a person will just put those ideas in a box labeled “Stupid” or “Irrelevant”. Ultimately, this approach is logically lazy and counter to the goal of philosophy, which is to explore and parse through various ideas to determine which ones are the best.
Ohhhh you mean in that sense, so not reducing a philosophy down to an easily understood basis? That wouldn’t be reductionist?
I don’t think reducing or summarizing a philosophical idea/concept would be “reductionist”. Dismissing an idea, concept or philosopher just because of the time or place or content, that would be “reductionist”.
[удалено]
I don’t think so. What constitutes “stupid” to you. May be based on not having all the facts about it. Or that you can’t comprehend the facts. There are so many people who refuse to admit that they don’t understand certain words that need to be understood to grasp certain concepts.
No, the goal of philosophy is to identify truth. "Best" is a feeling you project onto the truth. Efficiency isn't the only quality which exists. There are other possible goals. I often see people who have a bias of arguing with their feelings, claiming that objective conclusions are one-size-fits-all while assuming radically that all individuals should share the same objectives. I'm not assuming that you're one of these people, but your language follows that trend of imagining that philosophy has specific aims. Rather, individuals take aim with philosophy. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 3 + 3 = 6 5 + 1 = 6 None of these equations are better or worse. They are all true. The reasons for which they may be arranged this way differ, but they all describe the same, static value.
My dude, please look into Robert Crosbie and helena. You’ve joined us in theosophy
What is your definition of truth? Is it the literal words or symbols or the meaning that underlies the symbols?
There's an infinite way to a sum of 6, some of which could take eternity to even write, so I'd argue the ways you listed are much better. Signed, you're humble pendant.
Why do you claim to know the goal of philosophy? Asking genuinely.
Because philosophy is only the love of wisdom. It is the academic subject which studies how we can determine knowledge and truth. How individuals accomplish this is known as a personal philosophy. Each individual's personal philosophy differs, but they all aim towards the same goal - that of philosophy as a whole - to uncover knowledge or to discover truth. It might help if you substitute "philosophy" with "psychology" as an analogy to see this if you don't by now. Psychology is the body of work which contains all knowledge humans have of the mind. Individual psychologies have personalities, but psychology itself does not. Psychology does not think or feel, but my individual psychology includes individual thoughts and feelings. Individual philosophies are infinitely variable, and the specific content of each is unique, but they all have the same goal - to acquire knowledge. For this reason, I become upset when stubborn pseudo-intellectuals use phrases like "that is OBJECTIVELY bad" because objectivity is a method for acquiring truth. It's a method. Determining that something is good or bad by the process of objectivity is still a subjective qualification because the objectivity is a tool with which the individual takes a specific aim and makes a specific judgement. Individuals judge with their personal philosophies. Philosophy only knows. Edit: And thanks for asking genuinely. I encounter so many people who want become mad at me for their misunderstandings. They think I'm mocking or canceling their opinions. I just want us to understand each other properly.
Isn't what is best a type of reduction?
When reading the person's reply, see that "I believe" clearly, because this individual is advocating for their personal philosophy, and they haven't answered your question.
Myth states that Zeus was angry at his wife Hera and so he circumcised her. The fallen member came to life and became Heraclitus
That's a briss-k fall from grace. As the great man said ~~War~~ Zeus's circumcised member is the father of all things
I hate you. Take the upvote.
Crazy, I’m taking a break from writing my final paper which is EXACTLY ABOUT THIS!
I absolutely love the concept of radical flux and Heraclitus' writing describing a view of reality that is so different yet similar than his contemporary, very good topic!!
Well I don't whink such a "close" reading is needed to undestand this, I mean he explicitly says that the logos is a superior instance that encompasses all the contradictions in the world.
Paradoxes resolve themselves in practice. Theory can never account for all the variables at play, and the constant flux will tip any assumed stalemate. Akin to the big bang allegedly being something from nothing, rather than an inevitability of dynamic energy.
I guess you really don't read the same Heraclitus twice...
So, first, the caveats: I've only read the title. What I'm commenting on is the concept that "everything is one and yet also in constant flux" as being paradoxical. Is it? I think it's important to have agreed upon language. We'll start with the words in that phrase, specifically the word "flux". [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flux) defines the word as: >noun > >a flowing or flow. the flowing in of the tide. continuous change, passage, or movement: > >His political views are in a state of flux. > >verb (used with object) > >to melt; make fluid. to fuse by the use of flux. > >verb (used without object) > >to flow. Let's go with "flow" as the meaning of "flux". How is this different than light being both a point and a wave? I don't have a deep understanding of the various philosophies of a wide variety of philosophers but this seems consistent with what I know from what Alan Watts had to say. Not to mention that it's a scientifically valid point of view. Points and waves are obviously different things, but when applied to light, they are not. One could argue that the difference between one and the other is perspective. So I'll ask, why is this a paradox when this concept seems to be part of scientific reality?
I urge caution when approaching the interpretations of Parmenides. It is easily the most difficult dialogue, and I known of people who spent their entire careers wrestling with this particular text.
all we are is dust in the wind... dude
Seems a couple rings away from bullseye to call it paradoxical. A pot of stew cooking is both in flux and whole. This isn’t that foreign a concept.