Quoting dictionary definition means you can read but does not indicate an ability to draw logical conclusions of the written word.
I didn't just quote a dictionary. I followed through with a logical argument and a conclusion. And, by the way, how exactly can one read without the "ability to draw logical conclusions of the written word"? Doesn't the ability to read in and of itself require an ability to draw logical conclusions about the written word in front of a person? Else, how precisely would one "receive or take in the sense of (... letters or symbols)" which comprise the material read? Sorry, but the fact that I can read in-and-of-itself indicates an ability to draw logical conclusions. And, while we're rattling on about logic, well, just suffice it to say i won't even go into what it would take to prove that "quoting dictionary definition means you can read" just ain't true. There are ways I could quote the dictionary, and heck, even post here, without having an ability to read whatsoever.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step.
I started with one small step, breaking down the meaning of the word philosophy, as well as the meaning of the words that compose the definition of philosophy. We can of course break it down even smaller. Philosophy = philo + sophy = love + wisdom. Merriam-Webster: wisdom - 2: a wise attitude, belief, or course of action. Who among us doesn't, in some way, love a "wise attitude, belief, or course of action"?
The utterance of a child whilst novel does not relate to life experience
Then what exactly does the "utterance of a child" relate to? Does the child not have a life experience? Is that life experience somehow utterly detached from life experience in the broader world of which it is a part? Explain, please, just how a child's utterance fails to relate to life experience, whether broadly (in the world at large) or specifically to that child. Personally, I've heard even small children utter some incredibly profound statements that demonstrate an substantial grasp of the complexities of the world around them. Heck, even non-novel utterances of a child relate to life experience. Utterance: "Mommie, may I have some milk, please?" Life experience (specific to this child): Mommy is the gatekeeper to milk. If I ask mommy, she might give me some milk. If I ask mommy nicely, I have an even better chance that she might give me some milk. Life experience (in the world at large): People are gatekeepers to resources. If I ask for a resource I want, a gatekeeper might give it to me. If I ask nice for a resource, a gatekeeper may be even more likely to give it to me. The child itself may not realize that this particular skill will one day come in handy in the world at large, but that has nothing to do with whether that skill relates to life experience in the world at large. Is is really even possible for a child to have an utterance that does not relate to life experience? Even an infant who has no formal language?
the ability to assimilate and understand a principle and its relationship to life or a set of circumstances requires a level of intelligence.
Even an embecile has a
level of intelligence. Not a very high level, but a level.
Even an embecile can understand some principle and relate it to some portion of life and some circumstance somewhere. May not have the same level of understanding or ability to relate as most of us, but some ability is there.
As I said before, I agree with you where a more
formal definition of the word philosophy, from the standpoint of "higher education", is involved. But to dispute the less formal definition, it would seem, is to deny a large portion of the world one actually lives in. To insist on on permanently having one definition rule one over the other would seem, to me at least, to favor book-learning at every expense over good-old-common-horse-sense, which, in-and-of-itself should by no means permanently rule over book-learning. Me thinks you need the two to balance each other off.
Sign In
Create Account
