Is it possible for nuance to emerge from people without debate between them or within themselves as a way to get to that refined conclusion?

2 Answers

  • 1 month ago

    "Nuance" might work but if you think that

    it can -getting to better and better conclusions-  without WORK 

    then no it is not possible

    After much work & perhaps inconsistent criticism here

    I realised that what was wrong with the answers here

    of the stunted work of commentators  (of naive philosophy)

    was really because 'they hadn't grown up". 

    Not just philosophically but mentally too.. as if like children 

    they had LEARNED TOO Well to accept things on face value

    just like they were taught.

    I knew it was easy-to-get this wrong, that I could be totally 

    mistaken about some dudes here professing & writing at 

    length about the work of philosophers I had only heard and

    read about in encyclopedias etc.

    But it wasn't too hard to work-them-out.. especially once I

    realised that not only WAS THERE a pattern to all their

    various thinkings but also that some seemed to be agreement 

    with the most obtuse (historical) studies, like Ancient Greeks

    and the society from whence the scholars like Plato etcetera

    came from.

    I'd already read & understood the brilliant books of Popper

    "The Open Socienty and its Enemies" which includes much

    of the work of various ancient Greeks and all..

    it seemed to me as if then there as a serious mismatch between

    what I'd learned & what a lot here were implying..

    This came-to-a-crux when almost "out of the blue" some

    time ago someone posted a short but telling line to

    me when discussing philosophy from those ancient times ;

    The line was  " No new philosophy (Under the Sun) " and 

    as it was obviously out-of-context I couldn't undertand it

    straight away. But after a short time cross-referencing &

    putting it into the context-it-was-meant I realised just what

    was being said.. which was that the writer was stating

    that there WERE NO NEW Philosophy theories from that


    Odd I thought?  Very odd I thought because why then were

    those other guys like Descartes, Bacon, Bergson, Lucasiuwic,

    and all doing-in-philosophy? Were they ALL HISTORIANS,

    just telling each-a-slightly-different history of the past?

    No, that could not have been (just one reading of some of those

    would show the truth which was not that they were just

    "story tellers" who just happened "to come" after the ancient

    Greek greats).

    I found in fact that the writer of that maxim above really meant

    what was implied, that since the Greeks there WERE NO

    REAL Theories of philosophy since that time!

    And so NO NEW Philosophy either !

    That "done it" for me... if anyone was so stupid & naive to 

    believe such nonsense then it had to be because -as a group

    thing- they HAD BEEN LED to believing this in some sort

    of TEACHING way ; and as THIS NORMALLY occurs in

    school as a necessary-behaviour-change then I put 2 and

    2 together to make four ; and that indeed some naive people

    and probably students had been taught and conditioned

    to believe that those Ancient Greek Philosophers were so

    brilliant as to have thought OF ALL Philosophy necessary

    for the rest of humanity !

    And if Any Of those conditioned commentators had even read 

    The "Open Society and its Enemies" which is openly but

    reasonably critical of Plato et al -especially so since I guess

    Popper himself must have been exposed to the some similar

    and ridiculous worship that has been going-on in and 

    around this whole STORY of the ancient Greeks etc...

    they would have realised I hope their mistake, their mistake

    in subjugating themselves educationally to such a ridiculously 

    extreme view that there could be no useful philosophy After

    such Greeks over two thousand years ago now.

    "Beggers belief" they should have thought.

    Anyway after that I also took a keen interest if anyone had

    a Lot-to-say on some subject or some problem. One particularly

    who still does that is j153e, quite a prolific writer some of the

    time. So it was natural that someone like me would "cut their

    teeth" on what he had to say. And I didn't care that he was

    a religious commentator - he may well have had some 

    reasonably consistent views leading to some valuable and

    problem solving philosophy. 

    But it was a total "mismash" - an inconsistent and frankly at

    times comments which were almost completely at odds with

    some logical and rational philosophy which I'd had understood.

    I probed deeper and deeper until after another frustrating

    episode of his I looked again at what he'd previously answered

    & asked... specifically within the category of philosophy. And


    ... the guy HAD NEVER ASKED A PHILOSOPHY Question...

    What exactly did this mean?  Does someone EVER know

    enough as to NEVER Need-to-ask new and fresh questions

    of and concerning philosophy?

    Of course they do.

    What are philosophers doing RIGHT NOW ?  Huh ?

    So there was only one reasonable conclusion in my view

    of that prolific philosophy commentator,

    Which was that he was being guided by his religion to seek

    out answers within Philosophy.

    But what if there wee a CLASH between these two, his religion

    and the philosophy being sources ?

    Then that could be easily explained away, and is sometimes is 

    if you care to look. But for an objectivist philosopher that is No

    Good, no reasonable way of doing of searching for philosophical

    truth. NO WAY AT ALL... because in fact instead of a real

    search what happens IN THIS case is that "objective type philosophy"

    gets DUMBED DOWN in-favour-of the more preferred religiously

    learned and accepted philosophy. And when I called this out,

    admittedly too crudely-but-instinctively- I now feel.. when that 

    happened I also instantly realised that his writings & clarifications

    throughout lacked that one thing which IS Vital now in modern


    His so-called philosophy lacked a "Critical character" so to speak ;

    It Lacked CRITICISM and it also looked as if the guy was AFRAID

    of it - of using it so to speak.

    That was it really.... j153e had not-so-much-Learned-philosophy

    as he had learned that philosophy WAS NOT A Progressive self

    contained category, a rightly independent DISCIPLINE..

    Instead it was something historical which like the ancient Greek

    apparent Philosophy, was in no need of a need to advance, of

    NEW Philosophy so to speak. And likely then the overwhelming

    reason for this IN THIS particular case is the fact that his

    RELIGION is "turned to" whenever there is say a clash with

    a philosophy problem , or answer and some common-sense

    problem or situation so to speak. And so the RELIGION and

    a religious & NON CRITICAL Solution, is expected and later

    -or sooner- agreed.

    And such agreement can be In-one's-(uncritical) mind wherefor

    and after it is WRITTEN DOWN it shows itself to be of a

    "Closed type character", 

    Similar to a "closed system" and not of some stated Open type

    Philosophy (system).

    And that tied-in-for me with the illogical & irrational (closed) meanderings

    that are too evidently prevalent within that guy's writings.

    And so behavioural philosophy "which has not Grown Up" so to speak.

    Something that I have learned which may be a valuable lesson

    to another.


    Source(s): a continuing search.
    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      1 month agoReport

      is out-of-control in the poor countries. Only by setting an example can we the West help our environmental friends and neighbours to tackle these SOLVABLE urgent Problems. so Two Person Families N.O.W. !  (might just go some way to help people out of poverty etc also).

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Of course. Or do you think every one-author novel is devoid of nuance? 

    • ‘Within themselves’ meant within the individual

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.