Transfer from Stanford to State University

[alh]

<p>Thanks QM. That pretty much answers my question.</p>

<p>adding: well I thought you answered my question till you added that last part and now I have to think about it some more :(</p>

<p>adding: I have no hope of understanding the analytical tools other than that they exist. That is already a huge leap of understanding on my part.</p>

<p>If the discussion continues, I’ll be back with revised questions.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>I think post 166 defines the way I think of intellectualism. </p>

<p>The guy who wrote Zen and art of the motorcycle maintenance wrote computer manuals for a living. Saying it is not a work about philosophy since it says motorcycle maintenance in the title or the guy wrote computer manuals for a living and so what does he know about life “misses” the point.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>I like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and have been known to quote from it in class. I think I won’t go into where I see it fitting into the philosophical tradition, nor whether it really fits with the definitions given in #166.</p>

[alh]

<p>

In the view of Socrates (469–399 BC), intellectualism allows that “one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best”; that virtue is a purely intellectual matter, since virtue and knowledge are cerebral relatives, which a person accrues and improves with dedication to reason.[6] So defined, Socratic intellectualism became a key philosophic doctrine of Stoicism. The apparent, problematic consequences of this view are “Socratic paradoxes”, such as the view that there is no weakness of will — that no one knowingly does, or seeks to do, evil (moral wrong); that anyone who does, or seeks to do, moral wrong does so involuntarily; and that virtue is knowledge, that there are not many virtues, but that all virtues are one.

</p>

<p>[Intellectualism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualism]Intellectualism”>Intellectualism - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

Debates about knowledge-how revolve around two main issues. First, there are debates about the degree to which knowledge-how is independent of knowledge-that. Is to know how to do something just to know lots of facts (of the right sort)? To exercise knowledge-how, must an act be preceded by some implicit or explicit consideration of a fact about how to do it? Since Gilbert Ryle’s seminal (1949) presentation of the issue, the majority opinion in academic philosophy is that there is a considerable degree of independence. Knowledge-how and knowledge-that are distinct kinds; to know how to do something is not just to know the right facts about how to do it, and to exercise knowledge-how you need not first implicitly or explicitly consider a fact about how to do it. The view that knowledge-how and knowledge-that are independent in this way is usually, following Ryle, called anti-intellectualism. The view that they are dependent—that to know how to do something is just to know the right sort of fact or that to exercise know-how requires a prior implicit or explicit consideration of a proposition—is called intellectualism. There is also a more radical form of anti-intellectualism according to which to know that something is the case is to have a certain kind of knowledge-how. I’ll use the label “moderate anti-intellectualism” for the less radical version.

</p>

<p>[Knowledge</a> How (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](<a href=“http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-how/]Knowledge”>Knowledge How (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))</p>

<p>I have no idea what intellectualism means. I am still trying to formulate my big data questions.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>I think that the last post (alh, #184) is extremely interesting. I have to assume that by “knowing-how,” something like “knowing how to water ski” is not in the “universe of discourse.”</p>

<p>Before returning to this thread just now, though, I have to say that I was chuckling to myself while imagining the OP’s son reading this thread and then thinking, “You know, I’m not really that interested in intellectual discussions, after all.”</p>