XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   brian mitchell  wrote:   
   > Tang Huyen wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/3/2016 6:32 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> A useful practice that most academics follow is to provide examples   
   >>> and/or citations to bolster the propositions they put forward. It   
   >>> seems to me that in the realm of abstract concepts the distinction   
   >>> between form and content is so fine as to be mostly invisible. Can you   
   >>> give an example of a "white scholar" floundering about in content   
   >>> while ignoring the form they were better to be focusing on? Just a   
   >>> short extract would be enough to give a sense of your meaning here.   
   >>   
   >> I am talking about the highest level of abstraction, at least in   
   >> philosophy, so examples are also very abstract, but if you   
   >> bear with me, the following quote from Michael Friedman at   
   >> Stanford should serve as example, just so that you know that   
   >> the wish is not outlandish. He is incredibly accomplished in   
   >> philosophy and logic, and what he says is not mere   
   >> vapourware. Scarcely anybody in the humanities of today can   
   >> equal him in area expertise, and his areas are many.   
   >>   
   >> “Nevertheless, there is at least one aspect of Cassirer’s   
   >> philosophical approach that I think is most relevant indeed to   
   >> our contemporary philosophical predicament: namely, his   
   >> interest in forging a connection between scientific and more   
   >> broadly ‘humanistic’ orientations in philosophy (embracing   
   >> both the Naturwissenschaft and the Geisteswissenschaft) and,   
   >> more importantly, the characteristic method he adopts for   
   >> pursuing this end. For the essence of Cassirer’s approach is   
   >> to employ the most sophisticated and comprehensive   
   >> resources of conceptual intellectual history (and thus the   
   >> resources of a paradigmatic Geisteswissenschaft) in   
   >> attempting to craft a new philosophical orientation   
   >> appropriate to the problems and predicaments of the present...   
   >   
   > Friedman uses the word 'predicament' twice here, and refers below to   
   > "our [...] present situation", implying something problematic, but   
   > from this short extract I can't divine what the predicament is.   
   >   
   >> For Cassirer this meant, in particular, that we attempt to trace   
   >> the conceptual evolution of both modern science and modern   
   >> philosophy — and the conceptual interactions between   
   >> them —   
   >   
   > I take it that this "conceptual evolution" is what you mean by form?   
   > Still, I need you to be more direct in your pointing.   
   >   
   > I came across a good example of the distinction between form and   
   > content in the field of psychiatry in a talk by Gabon Maté on   
   > addiction. He said we always look at what's wrong with addiction, but   
   > never what's right about it. In other words, what is the addictive   
   > substance or activity providing to the addict that they cannot get   
   > elsewhere? His answer is escape from pain. So the content of the   
   > addiction may be a drug, or pornography, or shopping, etc, but the   
   > form --what the addiction accomplishes-- could be said to be escape or   
   > distraction from pain, or emptiness, and so on.   
      
   Thank you for providing an example of the type of "need" that I've been   
   rambling on about.   
      
   Something "that they cannot get elsewhere" comes in many forms, and if   
   whispers are too quiet then a shout of cancer, addiction, or other   
   "unexpected" accident, may be in the offing.  The addiction is a symptom of   
   the disease, not the disease itself; once the disease is resolved its   
   symptoms have no further real justification for existing within the mundane   
   realm since their supporting ground within the abstract has been removed   
   and there is nowhere left for them to arise from.   
      
   >   
   > Does that functional definition of form accord with what you mean by   
   > form in this context? Do you mean why philosophy? To what end is it   
   > put? Or are you more interested in the categorisation aspect, sorting   
   > the various types of thought? Are you a taxonomist of ideas?   
   >   
      
   Your questions there are for Tang, but I'll comment that I'm not a   
   taxonomist of ideas but rather a collector of tools.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)