Philosophy

Realize that the method of philosophy leads to wisdom and truth.

Well-structured and logical thinking when exhaustive - has always been the most effective because of looking out for the truth in relevance to the person and what surrounds us. Therefore, philosophy is the mother of science - and science as we all are aware of it today came in spite of everything from philosophy and also the epistemology within it, and also the metaphysics. Does this result in wisdom and truth? NO - truth is that the Lord in relevancy all existences within the Universe.

These are facts in life that you will just simply find if and after you truly search - with an open mind - for the reality. Is that structured and logic thinking full - wisdom? Is that the thought based on “wisdom” from the Hindus or Buddhists philosophies – wisdom or perhaps truth? Now, to be capable of judgments within this field you'd wish to grasp these matters first. You would like to know who God is in spite of everything and who God isn't. What then comes from God - and what does in any case do NOT come from God. Wisdom is taken into consideration (on the thought of the thoughts of Aristotle) to be a mixture of theoretical knowledge (Sophia) and thus the sensible (phronesis) …(Kant made the identical distinction and deepened the thoughts in regard)- where the soul has integrated these parts into one solid ground or foundation within him/her.

So wisdom would then stand for: a capacity to possess perspicacity and conduct and at the same time a deep understanding of theoretical knowledge of the only kind. But… real deep wisdom are some things quite different after all - whether or not and when a non-public has acquired the latter within the above mentioned manner- and (also) it's the “fear of God”. NOW, fear doesn't really mean the lexical definition of the word - but to be able and capable to grasp the role we - being humans- have, and also the Role of God altogether that exists. Thereby act and think, accordingly. Altogether matters. (Anna Emdenborg, B. A)

What is Wisdom? Normally, the dictionary describes wisdom by the quality of getting experience, knowledge, and customary sense. Pertinent synonyms include: sagacity, sense, logic, astuteness, judiciousness, and prudence. The opposite of wisdom isn't stupidity, but foolishness. Many very bright people aren't very wise, and plenty of people of average intelligence carry a deep wisdom. What are you wise about in your own life? Wisdom in Buddhism In Buddhism, wisdom is one altogether the three major pillars of practice, the opposite two being virtue (sila) and meditative depth (samadhi).

Of these, wisdom is seen as most central, since this will be often what dispels ignorance. For its ignorance, not “sin” during a spiritual sense, which is regarded in Buddhism because the root of all that's harmful or evil. (Other terms used for this ignorance are delusion, confusion, and self-deception.) For example, while concentration in meditation is seen as a necessary skill, that alone won't carry a private to the farthest shore. One must even have insight – vipassana – and that’s what's ultimately transformative. (Though, to be sure, deep concentration is

additionally a wonderful facilitator of liberating insight.) Wisdom is extremely important because it peers through the veils of ignorance, confusion, and illusion into the middle of those three fundamental characteristics of existence: Everything changes. Therefore, nothing is permanent.

Not an inspiration, not a life, not the archipelago, not the earth itself. Everything is connected to and interdependent with everything else. Therefore, nothing has an inherent, absolute self-identity. Not an electron, not a tendril of froth on the ocean, not a redwood tree, not your body or mind or “I.” Everybody suffers. In Buddhism, the measure of true wisdom is its practical effectiveness, not its abstract or theoretical correctness. Since the overriding aim of Buddhism is that the highest of suffering, the essence of wisdom is knowing what finally ends up in happiness for oneself et al., and what doesn't . . . knowing what’s wholesome and what isn’t . . . knowing which tunnels have the cheese and which don't. Wisdom sees that clinging winds up in suffering anytime.

To paraphrase the Buddha: “I offer one thing: wisdom that knows how to suffer no more.” To say this barely differently, wisdom means a deep understanding of the Four Noble Truths. Because it says within the Samyutta Nikaya (8): Where can the varsity of wisdom be seen (at its best)? Within the Four Noble Truths. The utter penetration into those Truths is that the sphere of Nibbana; enlightenment is that the perfection of wisdom. That's why wisdom is taken into consideration perhaps the foremost fundamental of the ten “paramis” or perfections. (Rick Hanson, 2007)

Evaluate truth from opinions in different situations using the method of philosophizing

Phenomenology: On Self-Consciousness

For phenomenologists, the immediate and first-personal givenness of experience is accounted for in terms of a pre-reflective self-consciousness. Within the simplest sense of the term, self-consciousness is not something that comes about the instant one attentively inspects or reflectively introspects one’s experiences, or recognizes one’s specular image within the mirror, or refers to oneself with the utilization of the first-person pronoun, or constructs a self-narrative. Rather, these different varieties of self-consciousness are to be distinguished from the pre-reflective self-consciousness which is present whenever I’m living through or undergoing an experience, e.g., whenever I’m consciously perceiving the planet, remembering a past event, imagining a future event, thinking an concurrent thought, or feeling sad or happy, thirsty or in pain, and then forth.

Pre-reflective self-consciousness

Philosophical issues and objections

Temporality and therefore the limits of reflective self-consciousness

Bodily self-awareness

Social varieties of self-consciousness

Pre-reflective self-consciousness

One can get a sway on the notion of pre-reflective self-consciousness by contrasting it with reflective self-consciousness. If you inquire from me to administer you an outline of the pain I feel in my right foot, or of what I used to be just puzzling over, I'd reflect thereon and thereby take up a specific perspective that was one order far away from the pain or the thought. Thus, reflective self-consciousness is a minimum of second-order cognition. It is going to be the idea for a report on one’s experience, although not all reports involve a major amount of reflection. In contrast, pre-reflective self-consciousness is pre-reflective within the sense that;

It is an awareness we've before we do any reflecting on our experience;

It is an implicit and first-order awareness instead of an exact or higher-order type of self-consciousness. Indeed, a certain reflective self-consciousness is feasible only because there's a pre-reflective self-awareness that's an on-going and more primary reasonably self-consciousness. In short, unless knowledge is pre-reflective and self- conscious there will be nothing if it wishes to undergo, and it therefore cannot be a phenomenally conscious process (Zahavi 1999, 2005, 2014). An implication of this

{can be} obviously that the self-consciousness in question is so fundamental and basic that it can be ascribed to all or any creatures that are phenomenally conscious, including various non-human animals.

Philosophical issues and objections

The concept of pre-reflective self-awareness is expounded to a spread of philosophical issues, including epistemic asymmetry, immunity to error through misidentification and self-reference. We'll examine these issues each successively. It seems clear that the objects of my seeing are intersubjectively accessible within the sense that they'll in theory be the objects of another’s perception. A subject’s internal representation itself, however, is given in a very unique way thanks to the topic itself. Although two people, A and B, can perceive a numerically identical object, they each have their own distinct perception of it; even as they cannot share each other’s pain, they cannot literally share these perceptual experiences.

Their experiences are epistemically asymmetrical during this regard. B might realize that A is in pain; he might be compassionate to A, he might even have the identical quiet pain (same qualitative aspects, same intensity, same proprioceptive location), but he cannot literally feel A’s pain the identical way A does. The subject’s epistemic access to her own experience, whether it's a pain or a representation, is primarily a matter of pre-reflective self-awareness. If secondarily, in an act of introspective reflection I begin to look at my perception, I will be able to recognize it as my internal representation only because I've been pre-reflectively attentive to it, as I've been living through it.

Thus, phenomenology maintains the access that reflective self- consciousness needs to first-order phenomenal experience is routed through pre- reflective consciousness, for if we weren't pre-reflectively alert to our experience, our reflection on that would never be motivated. After I reflect, I reflect on something with which I am already experientially familiar. 3. Temporality and therefore the limits of reflective self-consciousness. Although, as pre-reflective self-aware of my experience I am not unconscious of it, I do not attend to it; rather I tend to overlook it in favor of the

item that I am perceiving, the thing I am remembering, etc. In my daily life, I am absorbed by and preoccupied with projects and objects within the world, and per se I do not attend to my experiential life.

Therefore, this pervasive pre-reflective self-consciousness is not to be understood as complete self-comprehension. One can accept the notion of a pervasive self-consciousness and still accept the existence of the unconscious within the sense of subjective components which remain ambiguous, obscure, and proof against comprehension. Thus, one should distinguish between the claim that consciousness is characterized by an instantaneous first-person character and therefore the claim that consciousness is characterized by total self-transparency. One can easily accept the primary and reject the latter (Ricoeur 1950, 354–355).

Bodily self-awareness

Much of what we have said about self-consciousness should seem overly mentalistic. It is important to notice that for phenomenologists like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, pre-reflective self-awareness is both embodied and embedded within the world. The first-person point of view on the planet is rarely a view from nowhere; it's always defined by the case of the perceiver’s body, which concerns not simply location and posture, but action in pragmatic contexts and interaction with people. Pre- reflective self-awareness includes aspects that are both bodily and intersubjective.

The claim is not simply that the perceiver/actor is objectively embodied, but that the body is in some fashion experientially present within the perception or action. Phenomenologists distinguish the pre-reflective body-awareness that accompanies and shapes every spatial experience, from a reflective consciousness of the body. i would need to look or feel around so as to seek out where the tool is; but, under normal circumstances, I never should try this in relevance to my body. I’m tacitly aware, not only of where my hands and feet are, but also of what I can do with them. This tacit awareness of my body always registers as an “I can” (or “I can’t,” because the case may be).

Primarily, my body is experienced, not as an object, but as a field of activity and affectivity, as a potentiality of mobility and volition, as an “I do” and “I can.”

Intersubjective and social varieties of self-consciousness

A focus on embodied self-experience inevitably ends up in a decisive widening of the discussion. The externality of embodiment puts me, and my actions, within the public sphere. Self-consciousness, which involves a capability to form reflective judgments about our own beliefs and desires, is usually shaped by others and what we've learned from others. This intersubjective or social influence may also affect pre- reflective self-awareness, including my sense of embodied agency.

I can become alert to myself through the eyes of people, and this may happen in an exceedingly number of various ways. Thus, embodiment brings intersubjectivity and sociality into the image, and draws attention to the question of how certain sorts

of self-consciousness are intersubjectively mediated, and should rely on one’s social relations to others. My awareness of myself joined others, an awareness that I'll frame from the attitude of others, attempting to determine myself as they see me, involves a change within the attitude of self-consciousness. Within this attitude, judgments that I make about myself are constrained by social expectations and cultural values. This sort of social self-consciousness is usually contextualized, as I try and understand how I appear to others, both within the way I look, and within the meaning of my actions. I find myself particularly contexts, with specific capabilities and dispositions, habits and convictions, and that i express myself in an exceedingly way that's reflected off of others, in relevant (socially defined) roles through my language and my actions

Existentialism: Human Freedom Existentialism could be a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and selection. It's the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and check out to form rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. It focuses on the question of human existence, and therefore the feeling that there's no purpose or explanation at the core of existence. It holds that, as there's no God or the other transcendent force, the sole thanks to counter this nothingness (and hence to search out meaning in life) is by embracing existence.

Logic and demanding Thinking: Tools in Reasoning Logic is centred within the analysis and construction of arguments. Within the first chapter, logic is discussed in concert of its main branches. Logic and demanding thinking function paths to freedom from half- truths and deceptions. Critical thinking could be distinguishing facts and opinions or a private feeling. In making rational choices, first, we suspend beliefs and judgment until all facts are gathered and regarded. Though facts are important, critical thinking also takes into consideration cultural systems, values and beliefs.

Critical thinking helps us uncover bias and prejudice and receptive new ideas not necessarily in agreement with previous thoughts. In general, there are two basic varieties of reasoning: deductive and inductive. Induction relies on observations so as to create generalizations. This reasoning is commonly applied in prediction, forecasting or behaviour. Reasoning draws conclusion from usually one broad judgment or definition and another specific assertion, often an inference. See instance:

All philosophers are wise. (Major premise) Confucius may be a philosopher. (Minor premise) Therefore, Confucius is wise (Conclusion)

Validity and Soundness of an Argument supported the previous example (or syllogism). If the 2 premises are constructed logically, then the conclusion must follow logically, the deductive argument is valid. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is true or false. Validity comes from a logical conclusion is true or false. Validity comes from a logical conclusion supported logically constructed premises

(Reed 2010)

What are Fallacies?

A fallacy may be a general form of appeal (or category of argument) that resembles good reasoning, but that we should always not find to be persuasive. In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that's evaluated as logically incorrect which undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound. Irrespective of their soundness, all registers and manners of speech can demonstrate fallacies. On the opposite hand, a fallacy could be a defect in an argument aside from its having false premises. To detect fallacies, it's required to look at the arguments content. Here are a number of the usually committed errors in reasoning and thus, arising with false conclusions and worse, distorting the reality.

Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)

- A specific reasonable appeal to emotion during which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feeling of pity or guilt.

Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Whatever has not been proved false must be true, and contrariwise.

Equivocation

This is a logical chain of reasoning of a term or of a word several times, but giving the actual word a special meaning whenever. Example: groups of people have hands; the clock has hands. He's drinking from the pitcher of water: he's a baseball pitcher.

Composition

This infers that something is true of the overall from the actual undeniable fact that it's true of some a part of the whole. The reverse of this fallacy is division.

Division

One reason logically is that something true of a thing must even be true of all or style of its parts.

Against the Person (Argumentum ad hominem)

This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. However, in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate if relevant to the matter.

Appeal to force (Argumentum ad baculum)

An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as justification for a conclusion.

Appeal to the people (Argumentum ad populum)

An argument that appeals or exploits people’s vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on popularity.

False cause (post hoc)

Since that event followed this one, that event must be caused by this one. This fallacy is additionally cited as coincidental correlation, or correlation, not causation.

Hasty generalization

One commits errors if one reaches an inductive generalization supporting insufficient evidence. This commonly supported broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a little group that fails to sufficiently represent the entire population.

Begging the question (principi principia)

This is a sort of fallacy during which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly within the premise.

“Facts are statements which will be shown to be true or are often proved, or something that basically happened. You may be able to search facts in an encyclopedia or other reference, or see them for yourself. as an example, it's a proven fact that broccoli is sweet for you (you can look this up in books about healthy diets).

“Opinions express how a private feels about something – opinions don't have to be based upon logical reasoning. as an example, it's an opinion that broccoli tastes good (or bad).”

Both of those connect fact with probability. But in common parlance, “provability” seems audience-relative as well: While one person might find Anselm’s ontological argument to be a sufficient proof for God’s existence (thus rendering “God exists” a fact for that person); others won't.
Circumstances surrounding an occurrence, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it should be fully understood. Facts and opinions must be placed in context to draw conclusions from.

For example, a young boy who tells his mother “I ate a truckload of sweets at the party last night” should be placed within the context of his age, and audience.

We can confidently infer he never actually ate a true truckload of sweets, but we'll reasonably appreciate he ate plenty of them and wanted to worry that time.

His mother might ask a clarifying question to point that opinion into a tough fact.