No idea what u're talking....nicce accusation, i am a book, i try to act smart....continue to do that, after finished critising then let give ur view on this article, ok???

Yeah,i have no idea on what are talking about too,as you love to use sms language.This is a forum,not a sms message board.

Please write in proper English and punctuation.

---

Added on August 16, 2009, 7:10 pmI doubt he's just a book.More like a philosopher wannabe that loves sms language and copy and pasta other people's work with no source.

I even state my sources for some random games news.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Aug 16 2009, 07:10 PM

knowing does not equate to understanding.

You may know something, but u may not understand how or why it is so.

Philosophy is all about thinking. Good philosophers tend to be very coherent. They can write and convey their thoughts clearly, this is because their mind is used to thinking and sorting out deep issues.

TS, with your poor writing skills and incoherent babbling, no one here is going to take you seriously. Broken english isn't a problem, but from the way you write, it shows how you think, and to me, it seems to be a very untrained mind.

No offense, but you do need to put a space after full stops/periods methinks.

The nature of knowing has been debated throughout history, but in this case, my personal opinion is that 'understanding' is a subset of 'knowing'. After all, understanding why something is so is also knowing why something is so.

How and what you synthesise knowledge for is another matter altogether.

I personally don't even know what this thread is about, but from the TS's post, I would like to share this joke:

The engineer asks, "how can I solve this problem?"

The doctor asks, "what is wrong with this individual's health?"

The Philosopher asks, "do you want fries with that?"


cheers

Understanding involves the intellect.

Knowing involves being, the 5 sense, emotion, experiences.

This reminded me about our multi A achievers by our students, study to know the answer to the question but don't have to understand. I wonder why I never doubt or want to understand when I was young too, we know how to drive but don't need to understand engineering, people often confuse knowing is understand.

I like this sentence, 'Discussion is the introduction'. It gives me the feeling that you want to initiate discussion with other people here and have them thinking.
In physics, you have to define the term that you're using. I belief this is the same as for philosophy. First, you have to define 'learn not to know' and 'understand' to me in the text above. It gives me a vague idea what those two mean. I hope to have more precise definition here. I'm sure you have a very deep philosophical idea/definition about it since you can easily used it here.
Although I'm not an expert in philosophy, but I strongly advise you to read more. Have your own thinking is a good thing; however, reading more will do you good than harm.

As the Chinese saying goes, "A book tightly shut is but a block of paper".

Regards, Joey

No, you're not a book.

I have a feeling you're trying to promote Islam secretly.

first, i almost vomit blood because TS debated until second page only start discussing what he/she wants to discuss.
TS, when you post an article, and never mention what you want to discuss about, then others are free to say whatever they want. Don't go shooting other people's comment just because you don't like the comment.

<after finished critising then let give ur view on this article, ok???>

Everyone have given 3 pages worth of their views on this topic. So what it is that you are looking for?

The above quoted statement is an excerpt from the article originally written by Jessica Shepherd that published in The Guardian, Tuesday 20 November 2007 issue.

In fact, it's most probably true that one can really use Applied Philosophy in a number of different ways because it cultivates Critical Thinking generally, in which it has a lot to do with our daily lives, especially in the workplace. But, depending on the ones interests, some parts of it will seem more relevant than others. And some parts of philosophy are more abstract than others. So, please allow me to share a real-life experience in Construction Project Management with regards to this.

There are many good applied philosophical approaches available to assist Project Managers and Engineers to carry out their duties properly. Covert Persuasion Skills and Project Plan, however, are intended to ensure that jobs proceed Effectively, Efficiently & Economically (3Es) within the prescribed limits of acceptable procedures and resources (4Ms). Therefore, when things go wrong, the Project Manager or Engineer must turn to the Contracts and other legal textbooks using Critical Thinking Skills, which require time and knowledge to study to CYA (Cover Your Ass) ethically. (Unethical practices are best left to underground discussion.)

For example, between the two scenarios, a smooth contract or a construction calamity, there is a gap which Analytical & Critical Thinking Skills attempt to fill. It is based on the fact that architects, consultants, engineers, owners, and subcontractors will forget things, do them at the wrong time or simply make mistakes. In addition, numerous problems arise which even the stakeholders cannot foresee. And then problematic issues tend to follow a pattern. I have personally encountered or observed most of the situations and therefore, specially developed the sets of mnemonics which follow. The purpose is to help my project team mates to apply Critical Thinking Skills to extricate themselves from difficulties by identifying (and not necessarily exposing) the Tricky Opponent's utmost intention in the most basic and practical way.

An argument in its simplest form: “Assumption + Evidence = Conclusion”, where its assumption often goes unstated and unwarranted.

C.R.I.T.I.C.A.L. Thinking
********************
C = Credibility > Does the arguer express his points clearly, concisely, and coherently strong with the quality of being convincing?
R = Relevance > Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? Does the arguer commit any Informal Fallacies of Relevance?
I = Integration > Is all relevant evidences taken into account (given limitations of intentions, importance, and implications)?
T = Trueness > Does the critical group of assumptions provide good reasons beyond reasonable doubt to accept the conclusion?
I = Impartiality > Is the arguer bias toward what confirms his personal view, familiar ideas, and his likes (or against your dislikes)?
C = Consistency > Do the claims contradict other claims, personal experiences or background beliefs made in the argument?
A = Adequacy > Do the premises provide adequate logical support for the conclusion?
L = Logical > Is the reasoning logically correct?

F.U.C.K.E.D.
**********
F = Fact = a thing that is known or proved to be true
U = Understanding = the ability to understand something; comprehension
C = Concept = an abstract idea formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
K = Knowing = the state of being aware or informed
E = Explanation = a reason or justification given for an action or belief to make something clear
D = Data = factual statistics collected together for reference or analysis

D.O.G.M.A.
*********
D = Distortion = creating, from other people’s words or actions, a meaning which may not necessarily be true
O = Omission = being selective about experiences and choosing to omit certain information, so part of the meaning is deleted
G = Generalization = believing something to be universally true based on limited experience
M = Manipulation = control, influence or mislead (a person or situation) cleverly or unscrupulously
A = Assumption = a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof or rational justification

My God why can't people be a little bit more encouraging, here we have a budding intrigued young thinker who is interested in a challenging field, and all people do is just trying to show how much they know by belittling his interest and effort.

This post has been edited by Seiryu: Feb 12 2012, 11:45 PM

My Goodness, and in an interesting way, I'm wondering if your suggestion partially lacks merit and perhaps your claim about “all people” is considered over-generalization. All people, most people, some people, or few people only?

If everyone had that belief after reading your post, then what's the real test between your post and others? But it is absurd to think that you are one of the responder in this thread yourself, and so your claim implies that you are belittling communist892003 as well.

Of course, you may mean to say, “... some people ...”, but have you ever gave a deeper thought, what has TS done to influence some people reacted and responded in certain ways, which in return psychologically aroused you to make an over-generalized claim without suspending judgement in your post?

communist892003,
I encourage you to dig deeper into this subject as it will be very useful to you spiritually. Once you know how to utilize philosophy in your life, you can move mountain. And don't let some imaginative stone stand in your way either.