The prose “Paralogical Thinking” by Tim Freke introduces reality as being fundamentally paralogical and paradoxical. In this text, Tim Freke analyses the different perceptions of reality. The text talks about the meaning of paralogical thinking and how it is different from the logical thinking. Tim Freke defines paralogical thinking as the “both/and” thinking and logical thinking as the “either/or” thinking. The “either/or” logical thinking refers to the fact that there is only one solution and can only be used when looking at the surface of the things. In contrast to the logical thinking, the “both/and” paralogical thinking refers to the life being paradoxical and the fact that there is more than one way of looking at several concepts of
As stated before, paralogical thinking is the belief that reality can be paradoxical and the by paralogical thinking, people see things I different ways which complement each other. Tim Freke states that “when [people] look at the world, what each eye sees is different, but they combine to create a single vision of reality that has depth” (9), which is used as a metaphor for the paralogical thinking. Regarding the vision metaphor or analogy, paralogical thinking is about seeing the world from different perspectives and understanding how they complement each other. At the end of the speech, Tim revisits the analogy of using both eyes to see the depth of the world, which is not possible in logical thinking as it is only able to look at the
He uses the paradox of light being a particle and a wave and revisits this idea throughout the entire text. Depending on how the experiment is set up the components of light can be different, as the light could appear to be comprised of “elementary particles” (2) or the light could appear to be a wave. By using this “wave-particle duality” (2), Tim Freke contrasts between the logical thinking and the paralogical thinking. Tim Freke, further quotes Carl Jung and Niels Bohr to illustrate the contrast between the logical and paralogical thinking. Niels Bohr’s explanation of the truths – “there are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false [however] the opposite of a great truth is also true” (5) – is an intriguing and interesting example used by Tim Freke to support his argument of paralogical thinking. Tim Freke not only quotes Niels Bohr but he also uses the truth as a symbol for paralogical
In chapter ten of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels, the author, the author discusses the possibilities of human beings living in an actually reality, or if we are just living in an illusion. Rachels guides us through concepts that try to determine wiether we are living in a world were our perception of reality is being challenged, or questioned. Rachels guides us through the topic of “Our Knowledge of the World around Us”, through the Vats and Demons, idealism, Descartes Theological Response, and direct vs. indirect realism.
In the quote above, the reader can see images because when one thinks of the horizon,
To conceive – or to think in terms of concepts – is to make an epistemic claim, which may not be the same as attributing of something that it possibly exists in reality. The philosophy of the mind remains indebted to Kripke’s distinction between epistemic possibility (how things could conceivably be) and metaphysical possibility (how things could really be).[4] What could conceivably be the case might be metaphysically impossible (i.e.: impossible to instantiate in a possible world), and this is to be known a posteriori rather than a priori. What do the problem of ethnocentrism, the problem of obstacle-concepts, and the problem of conceivability have in common? Firstly, they invoke a belief in a set of concepts which they purport to be the best available description of the world.[5] Secondly, they involve a certain bias that awaits critical reflection. In ethnocentrism, it is the cultural bias of the Western or Westernized researcher; in the philosophy of science, it is the sociological bias of the prevalent scientific community; in the philosophy of the mind, it is the bias of the individual mind questing after a mind-independent reality. Finally, these biases are smuggled into the
What we see is not the truth, but rather our interpretation and distortion of the things we struggle to perceive, as our imagination fuses with our conception of reality. We conceptualize these omnipotent forces through our uses of symbols – to create an understandable world through abstractions – in order to explain what these forces are. [INTRODUCE CAPRA]
What we see in some things can based on our past experiences and things we’vewe have seen before. If you ever look at the clouds during the day and try to decide what you see and then ask someone else what they see it’sit is about very little chance that everyone will see the same thing. This is what I think of
The Extended Mind Hypothesis does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a theory suggesting that the human mind is not necessarily limited to a mental capacity. According to Clark and Chalmers the mind can extend to include information storage devices (such as computers, diaries, or even other peoples minds) to which we can have ready access, can rely on and trust as we would our own minds. These devices would be in a similar mode or state as the subconscious mind, that is; they would embody dispositional beliefs. This is known as active externalism.
This essay will reflect on the author’s learning experience and challenges to her journey of completing the high dependency care module. On reflection, the journey will be explored in which professional development is challenged and facilitated. In reflecting on these areas, the Driscoll's (2007) model of reflection will be utilized as this is very simple, straightforward yet suitable to any practitioner. Driscoll (2007) considered three stages in his approach to reflection as seen in Appendix 2.
In the essay “Thought” by Louis H. Sullivan, he states that people don’t always need words just to communicate. There are several ways that individuals are able to communicate without words, they can express themselves by gestures and facial features, like explaining themselves to others. Sullivan believes that both thinking and creative thinking are better without words and that the minds is always working; therefore, it does not have time to place words together. In order to think clearly they must use other means of pondering; although, the mind works quickly it will take a long time to write what they are thinking because the mind continues without stopping. When individuals are reading they are not think their own thought exactly but what
Many fatal consequences, caused by illogical reactions to problematic situations, can be avoided through a few easy, simple and “common sense” steps. In the essay “Deadly Mind Traps” author Jeff Wise writes to the everyday man and woman. Mr. Wise in his essay explains how the average person can make deadly mistakes even though logically they make little sense. Wise, offers multiple key terms to help the reader better understand his reasoning for his thesis. As well as, Wise produces multiple examples for the reader to connect the key terms to real life situations. Moreover, Wise not only gives key terms and examples to support his thesis he also gives examples of how to stay out of those situations. Wise from his essay demonstrates that his reader is an everyday person by using words such as we, us, you and our. And he uses everyday simplified words and terms which suggest inclusion instead of exclusion.
Bohm began his theory with the troubling concern that the two pillars of modern physics, quantum mechanics and relativity theory, actually contradict each other. This contradiction is not just in minor details but is very fundamental, because quantum mechanics requires reality to be discontinuous, non-causal, and non-local, whereas relativity theory requires reality to be continuous, causal, and local. This discrepancy can be patched up in a few cases using mathematical "re-normalization" techniques, but this approach introduces an infinite number of arbitrary features into the theory that, Bohm points out, are reminiscent of the epicycles used to patch up the crumbling theory of Ptolmaic astronomy. Hence, contrary to widespread understanding even among scientists, the "new physics" is self-contradictory at its foundation and is far from being a finished new model of reality. Bohm was further troubled by the fact that many leading physicists did not pay sufficient attention to this discrepancy. Seeking a resolution of this dilemma, Bohm inquired into what the two contradictory theories of modern physics have in common. What he found was undivided wholeness. Bohm was therefore led to take wholeness very ...
To respond to this shortcoming of consciousness, some might attempt to find an absolute absolved from one-sidedness, from sheer relativity to the knowing subject. Others will not respond this way, however, instead spinning off into apathy, subjectivism, or nihilism (59). Those who do attempt to find an objective truth most often turn to science. Some have suggested that the intellect is an ...
The book makes a comparison between the logic of care and the logic of choice. The logic of care is the central topic of the book. While the other, the logic of choice, makes its point of contrast. The logic of choice is considered as something good in the Western philos...
After reading Berkeley’s work on the Introduction of Principles of Human Knowledge, he explains that the mental ideas that we possess can only resemble other ideas and that the external world does not consist of physical form or reality but yet they are just ideas. Berkeley claimed abstract ideas as the source of philosophy perplexity and illusion. In the introduction of Principles of Human Knowledge,
symmetry. To look closely at the major patterns of paradox is to discover how the
The knowledge that individuals make reference in the sphere of everyday life is dominated by a kind of thinking ( natural attitude ) capable of suspending the doubt that this reality is something different from what you see .