trinitine

Philosophy is the rational study of man and the mind of man, as differing from
theology that is the intuitive study of God and the soul of man, and science
that is the observable study of nature and the body of man, Other knowledge
branches of these.

chris degnen

Psychology in the middle? Science of the mind (psyche, soul). Maybe.

realistic

If we can't find the soul, or the God, or know what intuition is..
what other words can describe what you are talking about?
Curious minds want to know.

RFHall

albert

Truly curious minds already know what is necessary concerning
soul, God, and intuition. This sounds like flamebait to me. Why
else would someone ask for an answer that fit into a Usenet post?
Whole libraries have been written for the truly curious.

--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

jason

from


They are different things to different people at different times. So nah...
unless you're after sugar-coated definitions that you can dip into instant
coffee, they are none of these things.

For example, the definition of red wine might vary depending on whether you are
talking to a chemist or a red-nose. I know vaguely what 'intuition' means to
me, but should I assume this of everyone else? Philosophy also looks at
science, but may set aside the concepts 'rational', 'mind' and 'man'. What
should be said about phil in this case?

realistic

I had no idea this subject was so settled.

Why can't it be a serious question?


sorry, I don't get this sentence.

True, but I'm asking a specific author if he can rephrase his post.
At the same time, I'm asking the reader to consider that the "soul",
"God", and "intuition" are not to be taken as established values. One
can't point to them. What are they, really? I've given it a lot of
thought and I might benefit from your thinking.

Telling me to "go to a Library" is an old usenet trick, suggesting
that the poster has gone to the library themself. We've all been to
the library. Usenet is where we share what we learned, I think.

It's also a good place to see the reactions that people have to your
writing. Sometimes you will get the response of the most cynical,
frustrated people, but it's unfettered and better than no response at
all.

RFHall
Realistic Idealism

albert

It is settled only among the truly curious.


From someone other than you, I might take it to be.

It's clear in the following sentence.

I don't see a request for rephrasing. I see a loaded question,
that tries to slip in the requirement that any rephrasing involve a scientific proof.

Established where? And by whom? And what do you mean by 'values'?


You can't point to 'reason', 'force' or 'singularity' either.
Yet, I daresay, you know full well what they refer to.


And your questions have, in fact, been answered on Usenet ad
infinitum, ad nauseum. They have even been answered in response
to your own previous requests. Perhaps, if you were to limit
your questions and requests to more specific aspects of what you find confusing...

Indeed. Fishing for reactions, rather than knowledge, is typically called 'flamebait.'


You must be terribly lonely.

--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

zzbunker

No, psychology is what makes mud, from dirt and water.
So, it's neither science nor philosophy nor theology.
It's a newspaper that publishes nothing
but the headline:
"God is dead: Read The Story Inside", on Mondays,
and an alternate lifestyle headline:
"God is with us: Write The Story Outside", on Saturdays.

So it's simply the belief that the word psyche
is not just merely a 6000 year hangover from Ancient
Eqypt, rather than a mind.

jason

A curiosity ceases to be when it is settled, unless what is settled leaves
behind something to be curious about. So you have either left behind a
contradiction for us to be curious about, or a reference to the revered Truly
Curious and their dogma.

albert

True. But the curious mind doesn't.


Doesn't it always?


False dichotomy. The curious mind is at the opposite end of the
spectrum from the dogmatic mind.


--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"