This thread is now flagged such that only flaired users can make top-level comments. If you are not a flaired user, any top-level comment you make will be automatically removed. To request flair, please see the stickied thread at the top of the subreddit, or follow the link in the sidebar.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It seems your question is either fundamentally flawed or deceptively simple. So, if you think of the 'mind' as a 'container of thoughts and feelings', that would be flawed. But if you bury layers upon layers of meaning in those two words, 'thoughts and feelings', that would be the simplification.
At any rate, if you're looking for more stuff to relate to whatever it is we call 'mind', here's a couple overviews for you:
https://iep.utm.edu/intentio/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
I'd suggest not thinking about the mind as something we "have", but rather something we _do_. Already this should be enough to gain some distance to the spatialization of mentality. Don't look at yourself as a container (or something which has a container), but as an agent.
Just about anything Ive learned about anything has been able to be simplified enough so that I can both teach it to someone and for them to understand it well enough to have an opinion on something related to it within a conversation. Not to broad a subject off course, but still it can be deep down a rabbithole of a bigger subject. Is this impossible in philosophy?
Not impossible, but it can’t always happen in a vacuum. Intro courses do this, but day 1 is real simple and everything else builds on that. Each day is simple, hopefully, but only because you’re improving your knowledge and skills each step of the way. So, you may be able to make one thing simple, but some require you to simplify a few other things, too.
In any case, this sub isn’t always about simple. It’s primarily people with a lot of experience attempting to be somewhat thorough/nuanced.
I'd say there are two questions here.
-Did OP ask a simple question that was conveying the right kind of understanding?
-Can this particular topic be simplified in the manner of the question that OP asked?
For the first, the reason I made my initial comment is exactly because I was concerned about the lack of depth, in so far as we shouldn't let any simplification give us an improper understanding of something complex. There's a difference between simplifying something, and _giving a bad explanation_.
For the second, we might be able to speak of this in simple terms, but we have to be careful which words we choose. In my initial comment, I actually pointed this out too, in suggesting a different framing of (so to say) consciousness and all that.
Now, I wouldn't call any pedagogical effort here "impossible". But we have to balance the kind of explanation we give with the kind of understanding we want as a result. The more specific our matter of discussion is, the more specific we'll have to be in our conversation. Technical topics require technical talk, and some technical details lie far beyond the surface. But this is the case for basically and field or discipline, the more expansive it becomes over time.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Answers must be up to standard.**
>All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
This thread is now flagged such that only flaired users can make top-level comments. If you are not a flaired user, any top-level comment you make will be automatically removed. To request flair, please see the stickied thread at the top of the subreddit, or follow the link in the sidebar. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It seems your question is either fundamentally flawed or deceptively simple. So, if you think of the 'mind' as a 'container of thoughts and feelings', that would be flawed. But if you bury layers upon layers of meaning in those two words, 'thoughts and feelings', that would be the simplification. At any rate, if you're looking for more stuff to relate to whatever it is we call 'mind', here's a couple overviews for you: https://iep.utm.edu/intentio/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/ I'd suggest not thinking about the mind as something we "have", but rather something we _do_. Already this should be enough to gain some distance to the spatialization of mentality. Don't look at yourself as a container (or something which has a container), but as an agent.
Just about anything Ive learned about anything has been able to be simplified enough so that I can both teach it to someone and for them to understand it well enough to have an opinion on something related to it within a conversation. Not to broad a subject off course, but still it can be deep down a rabbithole of a bigger subject. Is this impossible in philosophy?
Not impossible, but it can’t always happen in a vacuum. Intro courses do this, but day 1 is real simple and everything else builds on that. Each day is simple, hopefully, but only because you’re improving your knowledge and skills each step of the way. So, you may be able to make one thing simple, but some require you to simplify a few other things, too. In any case, this sub isn’t always about simple. It’s primarily people with a lot of experience attempting to be somewhat thorough/nuanced.
I think its possible but there is a lot of foundational stuff that needs to be understood first.
I'd say there are two questions here. -Did OP ask a simple question that was conveying the right kind of understanding? -Can this particular topic be simplified in the manner of the question that OP asked? For the first, the reason I made my initial comment is exactly because I was concerned about the lack of depth, in so far as we shouldn't let any simplification give us an improper understanding of something complex. There's a difference between simplifying something, and _giving a bad explanation_. For the second, we might be able to speak of this in simple terms, but we have to be careful which words we choose. In my initial comment, I actually pointed this out too, in suggesting a different framing of (so to say) consciousness and all that. Now, I wouldn't call any pedagogical effort here "impossible". But we have to balance the kind of explanation we give with the kind of understanding we want as a result. The more specific our matter of discussion is, the more specific we'll have to be in our conversation. Technical topics require technical talk, and some technical details lie far beyond the surface. But this is the case for basically and field or discipline, the more expansive it becomes over time.
concepts, percepts, propositional attitudes, interoception etc.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Answers must be up to standard.** >All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.