How Philosophy is a Form of Research
Updated: 1 day ago
How Philosophy is a Form of Research
Introduction
Sources are the original place or piece of information that one builds upon when creating any type of content.
As part of the Philosocom Renovation Operation, a process made to improve the site's content, I also added external sources to some of my articles.
Internal sources, on the other hand, are pieces of information within Philosocom. That's the virtual infrastructure of information in the online realm.
Sources are very important because they provide credibility to what you are talking about.
When adding a source, and one that is trustworthy, it can improve the reputation of your content and of yourself as a writer.
Some may claim that using YouTube as a source is problematic because the videos might not have sources themselves, and indeed, being able to distinguish between reality and illusion is extremely difficult.
And for that, you need philosophy in the first place!
Part I: Philosophy and Information Research
Now, let me say something some of you might find controversial....
Information research is not always sufficient, especially in philosophy.
The reason is because philosophy is itself a method of research. It's a method of using logic and reason, in an attempt to answer fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, morality, and all things existential or deep. The goal of philosophical research is to gain a better understanding of reality.
Meta-Philosophy -- What Constitutes a Competent Philosophy
A good philosopher is one that provides good insights on existence, and not necessarily one that uses external sources constantly.
The source of a philosopher's wisdom stems from virtue. Virtue is what makes the philosopher highly competent at fostering a questioning, critical mind.
Unexpected, I know, but using your heart's desire to understand reality, you might find insights that resonate with people around you. And, the more you use virtue such as persistence and hope, the more you can understand without spending time doing conventional research.
Using external sources like books can indeed be beneficial, even if not necessary. When researching, you can save much time, instead of killing it, by listening to yourself, and not to techniques parted to you by others.
When you listen to yourself more, you might find yourself developing many unconventional techniques, unlocking knowledge that others might not even be aware that exists.
Part II: The Depth of Philosophy
In general, research yields insight.
An insight is an idea that gives a deep, clear understanding on a specific subject or in general about reality.
Thus, without the ability to dispense insights, philosophy would be indeed the mocked parody some may portray it as.
Therefore, the practical use of philosophy is to grant us insight.
Philosophy is not a science even though they share the notion of knowledge-gathering in common.
Contemporary science depends on experimentation and empirical evidence.
That is while philosopher relies, first of all, on his/her mind/brain.
The power of the mind, to this day, remains esoteric and lesser-known.
In his field of study, the scientist may use a laboratory and external tools (AKA technology).
In order to be good at his job, the philosopher's tool of work is his/her own humanity.
Case example: Socrates was a mere stonemason, but is considered one the greats philosophers of all time. That's because the greatest source he used is the power within him to understand reality.
Thus, the scientific research may have to rely more on external sources than a philosopher. That's because science is far more informative and factual, compared to philosophical ideas.
The philosopher relies more on internal sources. Other than his or her own works, the truly competent philosophers use themselves and the world around them, as the most realistic of sources.
Scientific theory is experimented. That is while philosophical theories are understood through resonation with others.
Resonation depends not only on logic but also on intuition. Humans are not only logical but also intuitive.
Intuition is linked many things, not only philosophy but also spirituality and the arts.
While both science and philosophy are up for debate, philosophy might require more debate than science.
Philosophers have been discussing the same topics for thousands of years, at least. A philosopher's answer to "what's the meaning of life" might therefore deserve more skepticism than an answer of a scientist to a physics-related question.
That's despite the fact that we should question everything. That goes for things we might deem basic (like the idea we are social creatures by default).
Philosophers aren't some shady businessmen that waits in an alley. Yet, their mysterious understanding of this world makes them mysterious by default as the next shady character (real or fictional).
Part III: Why Philosophers Avoid the Battle
Philosophers may live very unique lives, avoid certain things and beings, like very toxic people, because they need their mentality in good shape for the sake of their work.
Philosophers don't swear any oath for philosophy's end. Since philosophy stems from human virtue, it is extremely difficult for AI to parallel the wisdom of human philosophers.
It's part of ethics as for one to be professional at what he or she does. Professionality compels us to show restraint and avoid unnecessary conflicts with others. Thus, one can draw parallels between ethics and voluntary isolation.
Avoiding others isn't necessarily a product of cowardice. The concept of "avoiding the battle" was invented by the Chinese philosopher, Sun Tzu.
Sun Tzu was also a historic warlord and general who believed in the concept of lying low.
When you lie low and conceal yourself, you can subvert anything to your heart's desire.
Thus, "avoiding the battle" is also about picking what opportunity to seize for the sake of learning.
Anything can be reduced to concepts in philosophy, and that's the dark side of enlightenment.
It's very unwise to harm one's mental state for the sake of learning. The harm of one's mental state may require one to sleep more and may hinder their independent functioning.
Reality is naturally traumatizing. The origin of trauma stems from the fact we are all ignorant.
As such, although I happily accept criticism for my work here, I've set rules for commenting.
The idea that traumas are necessary for growth is a delusion of necessity. Human growth happens regardless.
We always grow per the reality around us, and the reality within us. The reason we grow is to evolve.
The point of adaptation is survival.
Avoiding unnecessary battles with this world allows us to survive better and keep ourselves fit and healthy.
What we should fight for is for our wellbeing, and not waste time fighting other people for no good reason.
Part IV: The Folly of External Sources
Relying completely on external sources is unwise because of several reasons:
First, any source can be questioned for its credibility:
Artificial Intelligence was created by humans, therefore, AI is flawed as well as a source of information.
AI/Robotics/Any piece of technology replicates the natural. Replicating a flawed natural world constitutes that these flaws will be replicated as well.
There is no point idealizing anything when it comes for knowledge, that goes not only for AI but also for anything that is innovative (or marked as innovative).
Second, even reliable external sources can be wrong:
Even a "scientific fact" can eventually be disproven.
Faith in science, while sensible, shouldn't be a blind one. Blind faith is a problem even beyond the world of religion.
Writers, biological or mechanical, who are immersed in idealizations, won't offer reliable external sources.
Science isn't omniscient, just like with any field of study. Any field of study exists because learning is lifelong.
When you may criticize a philosophical piece to be "baseless", or as "lack any research", you might be ignoring the fact that the credibility of a philosophical piece depends on reason as well.
The unconscious mind not only hides data from the person's own mind, but from the world as well.
Understanding the external world completely, therefore, is realistically impossible.
Self-discovery may entail the notion that even understanding ourselves is never entirely possible, either.
Part V: How Many Virtues Contribute to Knowledge
In order to ponder on the true nature of such any piece, such as an article, or even people, you might want to reflect on them.
In other words -- think deeply and carefully. Examine.
Determining something with haste can mislead you.
In other words, without having patience, we might as well mislead ourselves about anything and anyone.
Therefore, reflection is imperative.
I'm aware that in this day and age, we have great access to immediate response.
However, patience is imperative for reflection.
The more we apply reflection on our past, the better we can plan our future.
As such, not being able to manage notifications properly, may hinder our brain from recovery.
Therefore, readers deserve to be silent, in order to reflect on words they read.
Reflecting extensively on philosophical ideas might often be better than discussing them.
The more we reflect and introspect, the more we can hone our understanding of the same piece of information, the same piece of media, or even the same person.
Case Example: The Virtue of Rationality
The brain is too a source of research for just about anyone who can spare the time and energy to think deeply.
When it comes to rationality, it's something that varies from person to person. Some are more rational than others. While others may appear mad to you. However, often times, irrationality is merely perceived.
Rationality is something that can be improved. The virtue of rationality allows us to make our thinking clearer, and decrease delusions and biases in our mind. Here are some possible ways to do so:
Study logical fallacies, and understand why what makes them fallacious.
Learn from anyone and anything.
Embed the virtue of curiosity and wonder into anything and anyone you're learning from or on.
Respect the esoteric knowledge of this world. You could include the arcane in this as well.
Part VI: The "Authority" of The Philosocom Article Empire
Philosocom isn't a fake news website. The fact that an idea can be disproved, doesn't mean that its platform is a fake news website.
Philosophy, being the origin of all study, is never-ending.
As such, Philosocom is like a giant, breathing creature that constantly evolves per my philosophical research.
Being my legacy to this world, Philosocom is here to stay for many, many years.
The conclusion you can deduce from it is that, Philosocom will evolve accordingly to the reality around it.
What I'm writing here isn't necessarily fact, but simply the findings of my many contemplations.
You can therefore regard Philosocom as a virtual, philosophy research center.
Working on Philosocom compels me, its main author, to be the best version of myself, and avoid much of this world for the sake of my health.
Philosocom develops accordingly to how I develop, like a book develops accordingly to its writer, and like a worker develops accordingly to the factory they are in.
Ending, Extra Notes on Research
Internal Insights
You may also find that ancient philosophical texts, such as "The Art of War", by Sun Tzu, do not have external sources.
A proper philosophy of communication would enable the philosopher, with his or her abstract ideas, "dumb down" any insight he or she reaches, to the world around them.
Dumbing down ideas is something many geniuses struggle with. Thus, many geniuses find themselves alone.
Rejected geniuses in media can easily appear as villains, in the form of Dr. Eggman and many, many more fictional examples.
The "Tao Te Ching" By Lao Tzu didn't have external sources either, but served as the founding stone to the philosophy of Taoism, a most competent and realistic philosophy.
Even philosophers may need external sources in order to know things.
The battle in WW2 where the Americans and Wermacht fought together against the SS, is one of the many reasons to respect the esoteric.
Researching the esoteric can make you "dead inside" and make you deviate from the conventional perception of reality (AKA "the Matrix").
When people may tell you to, "look up yourself" or "do your own research", there's no point being insulted when you can just try to understand why they say this to you in the first place.
People may have their own reasons as to why they don't understand conventionally, and one of them being extremely deep cognitive fatigue.
External Insights
%20(1).jpg)
Comments