Just a pattern I noticed...

[Xander]

Philosophy is kind of the search for wisdom.
Wisdom often allows you to view things from a better perspective.
If wisdom is seen as lessons in perspective (like lessons in maths it teaches you how to find better perspectives and also teaches you more complex perspectives) then is philosophy a search for lessons?

Does this sound right?

Is the key ability of the wise being able to control their perspective and having learnt about perspective?
Is the sole purpose of philosophy to find these lessons which increase wisdom and teach how to use your perspective better?

I think this is where the link between science and philosophy comes from. Science is not a philosophy because it's practical, however the scientific approach is a philosophy. Philosophy probably helped science by allowing those with vision to modify their perspective and see new questions/ answers.

Oh and the whole relaxed thing that wise people seem to have, it comes from being able to see past the niggles in life I guess. It seems that perspective control is the best way of doing such things.

Anyhow just some thoughts randomly shoved onto a post for your pleasure/ discussion.

 

[wildcat]

Philosophy is kind of the search for wisdom.
Wisdom often allows you to view things from a better perspective.
If wisdom is seen as lessons in perspective (like lessons in maths it teaches you how to find better perspectives and also teaches you more complex perspectives) then is philosophy a search for lessons?

Does this sound right?

Is the key ability of the wise being able to control their perspective and having learnt about perspective?
Is the sole purpose of philosophy to find these lessons which increase wisdom and teach how to use your perspective better?

I think this is where the link between science and philosophy comes from. Science is not a philosophy because it's practical, however the scientific approach is a philosophy. Philosophy probably helped science by allowing those with vision to modify their perspective and see new questions/ answers.

Oh and the whole relaxed thing that wise people seem to have, it comes from being able to see past the niggles in life I guess. It seems that perspective control is the best way of doing such things.

Anyhow just some thoughts randomly shoved onto a post for your pleasure/ discussion.

I do not see shades or grades in perspective.
It is either totally right or wrong.

You cannot learn the thing gradewise.
Ask any landscape painter.

Perspective is the first rule.
You either have it or then you do not.
If you do not have it, forget about drawing. It is not gonna work.

 

[Xander]

I do not see shades or grades in perspective.
It is either totally right or wrong.

Okay who nicked Wildcat's log in?

What have you done with Wildcat you dictatorial authoritarian?

You cannot learn the thing gradewise.
Ask any landscape painter

What those landscape painters who learn to paint specific things sometimes like just bark or just water? I think it depends upon the artist as to how they chose to learn.

 

[wildcat]

Okay who nicked Wildcat's log in?

What have you done with Wildcat you dictatorial authoritarian?


What those landscape painters who learn to paint specific things sometimes like just bark or just water? I think it depends upon the artist as to how they chose to learn.

It is a lot more difficult to paint bark or water than it is to find the perspective.

 

[Xander]

It is a lot more difficult to paint bark or water than it is to find the perspective.

You started it

Would you not say that there is always multiple angles from which you can view things and that each has it's own advantages and drawbacks? Would it not then follow that there is no one correct view point unless you have parameters which define one singular instance as correct and that even if such is true then that angle becomes less than perfect necessitating a change in perspective? Therefore making it more true that there is only ever one singular correct perspective when you have parameters that define such and as we know such restrictive parameters are often wrong making it more wise to assume a flexible stance.

You are normally the one who takes this position, hence my assumption that you have been replaced by a cunning yet flawed imposter!

 

[wildcat]

You started it

Would you not say that there is always multiple angles from which you can view things and that each has it's own advantages and drawbacks? Would it not then follow that there is no one correct view point unless you have parameters which define one singular instance as correct and that even if such is true then that angle becomes less than perfect necessitating a change in perspective? Therefore making it more true that there is only ever one singular correct perspective when you have parameters that define such and as we know such restrictive parameters are often wrong making it more wise to assume a flexible stance.

You are normally the one who takes this position, hence my assumption that you have been replaced by a cunning yet flawed imposter!

The perspective has but two angles.
The horizontal and the vertical angle.

There exist no other angles whatsoever.

Mathematics is only about these two angles and their interplay.

Complexity is about the numerical expansion.

An illusion.

 

[Xander]

The perspective has but two angles.
The horizontal and the vertical angle.

There exist no other angles whatsoever.

Mathematics is only about these two angles and their interplay.

Complexity is about numerical expansion only.

An illusion.

Go get some coffee already whilst I try to get this in clarity.

Angle -> Viewing angle -> Perspective.
That's where I get the term angle from.

Complexity is about more facets. Variables or fixed it doesn't matter all increase the complexity.

You cannot reasonably assume to have the correct perspective. Therefore to even allude to their being one correct perspective is not good. If there is one right answer then your ranking the answers below on their proximity to the totally right one. As you don't have the totally right one (that'd be objective truth) then you can't effectively rank those below it accurately. Ergo second place (the "right" perspective) is probably occupied by more than one solution which renders your statement of there being only one right perspective as wrong.

I don't understand why you have flipped your normal approach. I can only assume there is reasoning. Lay it on me kitty.

 

[raincrow007]

Go get some coffee already whilst I try to get this in clarity.

Angle -> Viewing angle -> Perspective.
That's where I get the term angle from.

You do need coffee.
He's talking about this, which you should've guessed by now.

Although he's not entirely correct about what he's saying.

 

[Xander]

You do need coffee.
He's talking about this, which you should've guessed by now.

Although he's not entirely correct about what he's saying.

Thought we may be missing on the whole perspective versus perspective problem. It's soo difficult to get a person's perspective off their view point so they can see the wider angle though.



:hi: 007. Your back!

 

[raincrow007]

:hi: 007. Your back!

Indeed. Vikings, airports, and food poisoning can all kiss my ass.

Carry on.

*wanders off*

 

[wildcat]

You do need coffee.
He's talking about this, which you should've guessed by now.

Although he's not entirely correct about what he's saying.

How come I am not entirely correct?

Jamie Bond! Your back!

 

[raincrow007]

How come I am not entirely correct?

Jamie Bond! You're back!

Because you're not an artist you chat sauvage.

No, but seriously; there's some truth in what you've said about perspective -- it's critical in fundamental drawing and design.

Depart from realism, and perspective is not so important.



But then again, I am biased -- I'm an expressionist.

 

[wildcat]

Because you're not an artist you chat sauvage.

No, but seriously; there's some truth in what you've said about perspective -- it's critical in fundamental drawing and design.

Depart from realism, and perspective is not so important.



But then again, I am biased -- I'm an expressionist.

How come an expressionist? You do not look like Herr Beckman to me.

And your perspective is perfect. Are you sure you are not a surrealist?

 

[raincrow007]

How come an expressionist? You do not look like Herr Beckman to me.

And your perspective is perfect. Are you sure you are not a surrealist?

I've been compared to Beckmann before, actually. Also Nolde, Van Gogh, Chagall and Soutine.

But comparisons are loathesome.


Magritte is the only surrealist that I find clever.

And no, I am not a surrealist. Shame on you for thinking such a thing!

Now we must stop the derailing of Xander's thread. Unless of course he is enjoying this perspective?