0/0

On this note, one can divide philosophies into two classes: • The practical, DIY philosophies that occupy themselves with the problems and daily life of the individual human. They serve as guides or advices along the troublesome journey of life. To this category belongs Stoicism, Buddhism, and some Nietzsche philosophy. • The metaphysical, semi-religious philosophies that tell you what to believe in, and try to impose the author(s) design upon the world. These are more akin to religious tenets and political manifestos than to "self-help" books and fatherly guidance. To this category belongs Kant, Marx, and Berkeley.

واحد من أكثر الاستبيانات متعة🤝 خاصة بالأخير تبدي الاسئلة تاخذ منحى غير متوقع: https://forms.gle/AN9JEbXcEP1MVYHy8

❝All good in a man for which he is praised or loved, is merely good suffering, the right kind, the living kind of suffering, a suffering to the full. . .From suffering springs strength, from suffering springs health.❞ ― Hermann Hesse, Zarathustra’s Return

ملخص كتاب Laughing at Nothing

.

.

.

.

In this context: Johnson was playing chess, Berkeley was scrutinizing the rules

In this context: Johnson was playing chess, Berkeley was scrutinizing the rules

.

Appealing to common sense "Appealing to the stone" is considered a logical fallacy; a failure of reason, but I find it to be very sensible and convincing. It's an appeal to common sense, to everyday, self-evident experiences that usually tend to get dismissed in philosophy and labelled as "ungrounded in reason," even though they are grounded in what is as compelling as reason: the familiar, practical experience of the world. Just as common sense must be evaluated via philosophy to rid it of any flaws, so does philosophy need to be gauged in proportion to common sense to keep it rooted in reality and life. This appeal to common sense is vital for philosophy not to go astray in the roads of the fantastic, the unreal, and the nonsensical. Berkeley's idealism is known for its logical consistency and it's difficult to refute it logically. But that doesn't necessarily make it important nor useful, as Johnson's appealing to the stone shows us simply and elegantly how obsolete it is when we employ it in real life and use it anywhere outside philosophy textbooks.

Appealing to common sense "Appealing to the stone" is considered a logical fallacy; a failure of reason, but I find it to be very sensible and convincing. It's an appeal to common sense, to everyday, self-evident experiences that usually tend to get dismissed in philosophy and labelled as "ungrounded in reason," even though they are grounded in what is as compelling as reason: the familiar, practical experience of the world. Just as common sense must be evaluated via philosophy to rid it of any flaws, so does philosophy need to be gauged in proportion to common sense to keep it rooted in reality and life. This appeal to common sense is vital for philosophy not to go astray in the roads of the fantastic, the unreal, and the nonsensical. Berkeley's idealism is known for its logical consistency and it's difficult to refute it logically. But that doesn't necessarily make it important nor useful, as Johnson's appealing to the stone shows us simply and elegantly how obsolete it is when we employ it in real life and use it anywhere outside philosophy textbooks.

Appealing to the stone Samuel Johnson—logically speaking—was making a fallacy (called 'appealing to the stone'). But I think he was pointing out to a very important notion that neither logic nor "good reasoning" seem to take into account: whether Berkeley's idealism is true or not, the stone would still be solid every time I kick it, and my leg would still hurt me. When he said «I refute it thus», he wasn't creating a counter-argument within the same logical framework that Berkeley used to make his own argument (if he were doing so, then it would truly be a fallacy). He was standing outside the rigid confines of philosophy (in the fresh air of common sense), and dismissing Idealism's whole logical and philosophical framework as nonsensical, just like kicking a stone off the road.

هاي بالقرن الـ 18 اجة واحد إسمه جورج بيركلي كال: الوجود كله هو عبارة عن الله، والعقل. أمّا العالم الخارجي فهذا كله تصورات وخيالات تصنعها عقولنا وماكو أي شي مادي بالعالم؛ جسمك وبيتك والحجر والطير والشجر كلهن تصورات عقلية تصنعها عقولنا (الغير-مادية). يعني فلسفته (جان إسمها المثالية) هي بالضبط النقيض التام للمادية. بوقتها أكو واحد من علماء عصره إسمه سامويل جونسون Samuel Johnson كاعد يم صديقه اللي دوّخه وثوله هلكد ما سولف ببيركلي وفلسفة بيركلي، لحد ما جونسون ضاج كلش وراح لحجر جبير وضربه جلاق وكال: I refute it thus (آني أنفي فلسفته بهذا الجلاق) بس فك مني ياخة. يقصد: إذا كلشي تصوّر عقلي وغير مادي، جا شلون اني كدرت أضرب هاي الحجارة؟

A statue of Samuel Johnson kicking a stone

— مدخل إلى العلاج النفسي الوجودي، ترجمة د. عادل مصطفى

لنأخذ مثالًا بذلك المريض الذي جاء يلتمس العلاج بسبب شعورِه بالوحدة والعزلة، فكان يسهب أثناء الجلسات ويفيض في التعبير عن ازدرائِه واحتقارِه للآخرين. وكان متعنّتًا في هذه الآراء يُبدي مقاومةً كبيرةً تجاه مناقشتها، ناهيك تغييرها. فماذا كان مِن المعالج؟ كان يبرز له شكواه الأُولى ويقرنها بسلوكه حتى تتبيّن له مسؤوليته عن مأزقه الشخصي. وذلك بأن يذكره كلما أبدى احتقاره للآخرين: «وأنت تشكو الوحدة».