The purpose of philosophy in the digital age.

[Obsidius]

Grand.

I will.

Glad to see another upstanding intellectual

[Cellmold]

This is a book worthy (actually multiple books) topic.

Without going on an essay-style ramble I'll conclude that I believe it to play a very important part in breaking us out of the hall of mirrors effect that comes with easily accessible knowlege, made easier by digital advancement. This ease allows us to pull a fact up in order to impress and/or advance status, either socially or otherwise, in some fashion, but it leaves us malnourished because of an intense rationalisation and an (ironically) irrational need to have set definition in an entropic universe. And the knowledge is used less and less for any kind understanding, instead it is a blunt instrument for beating and defensiveness kicks in, a loss of learning from a better argument or a sudden revelation.

We reach out and grasp at reality in order to bring it in line with certainty, as everything measured appears also categorically predicable, hence the basal assumptions of the scientific method.

This is very useful for us; the man perceives an obstacle so he removes it, he looks at something to nurture so he dotes upon it. The very act of perception changes the reality, not just because of different perspectives but because the approach one takes in what area of reality that is apprehended also changes the actions you take and the manipulations of that reality.
In the digital age the explicit becomes more and more powerful as people obsess over the recordings of daily events and life, seeking definition at every angle in order to bring into certainty the uncertain.
Advancement, however, cannot come without an openness to uncertainty; leading towards a will to engage with what is unknown.

From the enquiry of the uncertain arose philsophical questioning and from that arose scientific examination. But more recently we have moved into an exasperation with what is more implicit an 'Other' of reality that refuses categorisation. Individuality is diminished because of this, after all (for example) no friendship is more unique than another when reduced to composite parts.
But does having the parts always make a perfect jigsaw?

It certainly makes a jigsaw in our understanding and this has important value for allowing us to understand what we know about the parts, which can add to an understanding of the whole. We cannot, however, understand from the 'right' distance (of both parts and whole) while only focusing on certain parts, just as an understanding of a neurone can add to our understanding of the brain but which without a conception of 'brain' and 'mind' is meaningless.

Talking of brains I'll leave this with a quote before I get too long winded:

To some people the brain is a thing, and a particular kind of thing, a machine; which is only to say that it is something we understand from the bottom up and which exists for a purpose we recognise. To others it is something the nature of which is unique, which we can understand, therefore, only by a degree of not-knowing which opens the mind to whatever is, and whose purpose is not so easily determined. In other words, we should expect that some people will be confident that they know precisely what sort of thing the brain is, while others may know 'precious little' about that.

- Iain Mcgilchrist

[Mole]

How do you "fail" psychoanalysis?

In psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, had a father fixation on Dr Freud.

Quite rightly Dr Freud resisted the counter-transference and sought to analyse the father fixation of Carl Jung.

Carl Jung resisted the analysis to such an extent he attacked Dr Freud and left psychoanalysis without completing his training as a Psychoanalyst. And so failed the purpose of his psychoanalysis with Dr Freud, and so failed his psychoanalysis.

However Carl Jung took with him his father fixation, and having fallen out with Dr Freud, Carl Jung transferred his father fixation from Dr Freud to the Fuhrer.

And so having failed as a Psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, became a disciple of the Fuhrer, and after the Fuhrer's defeat, Carl Jung became a guru of the New Age.

Carl Jung also kept a diary, called The Red Book, which revealed Jung's florid psychosis. The disciples of Jung kept The Red Book in a locked safe for more than 70 years, in order to deceive us about Carl Jung's mental state.

[Lark]

In psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, had a father fixation on Dr Freud.

Quite rightly Dr Freud resisted the counter-transference and sought to analyse the father fixation of Carl Jung.

Carl Jung resisted the analysis to such an extent he attacked Dr Freud and left psychoanalysis without completing his training as a Psychoanalyst. And so failed the purpose of his psychoanalysis with Dr Freud and so failed his psychoanalysis.

However Carl Jung took with him his father fixation, and having fallen out with Dr Freud, Carl Jung transferred his father fixation from Dr Freud to the Fuhrer.

Afraid I'm going to have to ask the source of your wild conjecture there good buddy

[Mole]

Afraid I'm going to have to ask the source of your wild conjecture there good buddy

We have at our fingertips the best research tool ever invented in Google. I've used it, so can you.

[Lark]

We have at our fingertips the best research tool ever invented in Google. I've used it, so can you.

Google's really great and confirming any opinions you key into it.

Anyway, you choosing to say google it is you choosing to say the conversation's over.

Which is fine as it wasnt exactly a thrill a minute.

[Mole]

Google's really great and confirming any opinions you key into it.

Anyway, you choosing to say google it is you choosing to say the conversation's over.

Which is fine as it wasnt exactly a thrill a minute.

For a long time you have been antagonistic towards me. This is psychologically significant.

You are quite intelligent and well read enough to rationalise your antagonism, but you might do better by analysing your antagonism.

[Lark]

For a long time you have been antagonistic towards me. This is psychologically significant.

You are quite intelligent and well read enough to rationalise your antagonism, but you might do better by analysing your antagonism.

I'm not antagonistic, although I can understand how you'd like to dismiss my posts that way.

[Mole]

I'm not antagonistic, although I can understand how you'd like to dismiss my posts that way.

Of course I understand your posts and appreciate your intelligence and your learning, and I also tune in to your emotional channel. This is a site devoted to psychology so perhaps you might like to explore your emotions.