Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

I'm 63 pages in and so far it's just filled with reminders of what I already know - namely, if we don't acknowledge and respond appropriately to our emotions they can cause us problems. The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial. it's not the type of book I'd recommend to someone else, and I doubt I'll ever pick it up again.

It's good to be reminded that other people can and will cause problems for us if we let them. We also need to be reminded that we can cause problems for ourselves if we continue to act on emotions in a harmful way. It's good to be reminded that it is helpful to be aware of our own flaws and our emotional reactions to those flaws. It's good to be reminded that we ought to challenge our own assumptions. (Again, these are my observations after reading 63 pages).

[Sushan]

I feel the same thing when reading many self-help books. And as per this book per se, the authors have not included a list of references. So actual reliability of the content is doubtful.

But at the same time, taking what you already know to one place and reminding or practising them again can be really helpful. I am not referring to this particular book, but that practice was really helpful when we got ourselves trained in emergency medicine. There were nothing new to us. But taking them together and rehearsing on how to apply them when a situation arises was really helpful.

[stevie]

The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial.

And even if it did it just remained a book displaying the thought fabrications of another. Why take any books seriously?

[Sushan]

The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial.

And even if it did it just remained a book displaying the thought fabrications of another. Why take any books seriously?

Are you seriously telling this . I think we all took our study books seriously in order to pass our exams, and I think you too have done that. So what are these 'any books' that you refer not to take seriously?

[stevie]

The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial.

And even if it did it just remained a book displaying the thought fabrications of another. Why take any books seriously?

Are you seriously telling this . I think we all took our study books seriously in order to pass our exams, and I think you too have done that. So what are these 'any books' that you refer not to take seriously?

The context is "book displaying the thought fabrications of another". The context isn't books transmitting knowledge.

[Sushan]

The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial.

And even if it did it just remained a book displaying the thought fabrications of another. Why take any books seriously?

Are you seriously telling this . I think we all took our study books seriously in order to pass our exams, and I think you too have done that. So what are these 'any books' that you refer not to take seriously?

The context is "book displaying the thought fabrications of another". The context isn't books transmitting knowledge.

What we call 'knowledge' today is not 100% comprised of proven facts. It includes hypotheses as well. Some hypotheses cannot be subjected into experiment as well. They too may well be just 'thought fabrications'. The difference between thought fabrications and knowledge may not be always well demarcated.

[stevie]

And even if it did it just remained a book displaying the thought fabrications of another. Why take any books seriously?

Are you seriously telling this . I think we all took our study books seriously in order to pass our exams, and I think you too have done that. So what are these 'any books' that you refer not to take seriously?

The context is "book displaying the thought fabrications of another". The context isn't books transmitting knowledge.

What we call 'knowledge' today is not 100% comprised of proven facts. It includes hypotheses as well. Some hypotheses cannot be subjected into experiment as well. They too may well be just 'thought fabrications'. The difference between thought fabrications and knowledge may not be always well demarcated.

I don't share you definition of knowledge, so there is no way to come to an agreement about what knowledge is.

[anonymous66]

I just finished the book. Now that I've read the whole thing, I might recommend it to people who are interested in becoming more successful in the work-place. It's geared towards people who acknowledge that emotions play a significant role in the work-place - to people who deny that outright, this book would probably be a waste of time.

[Sushan]

Are you seriously telling this . I think we all took our study books seriously in order to pass our exams, and I think you too have done that. So what are these 'any books' that you refer not to take seriously?

The context is "book displaying the thought fabrications of another". The context isn't books transmitting knowledge.

What we call 'knowledge' today is not 100% comprised of proven facts. It includes hypotheses as well. Some hypotheses cannot be subjected into experiment as well. They too may well be just 'thought fabrications'. The difference between thought fabrications and knowledge may not be always well demarcated.

I don't share you definition of knowledge, so there is no way to come to an agreement about what knowledge is.

I checked in the internet and various dictionaries the definition of 'Knowledge'. Even there it seems no single definition. I would like to know the definition that you accept. Thank you

[Sushan]

I just finished the book. Now that I've read the whole thing, I might recommend it to people who are interested in becoming more successful in the work-place. It's geared towards people who acknowledge that emotions play a significant role in the work-place - to people who deny that outright, this book would probably be a waste of time.

I saw that you have felt like this book does not contain any new facts, but only the facts that we already know, when you have finished reading around 60 pages of the book. Seemingly after that you have found interesting facts or learnt new things. Could you please share some of these valuable thoughts with the community. Thank you.

[anonymous66]

I just finished the book. Now that I've read the whole thing, I might recommend it to people who are interested in becoming more successful in the work-place. It's geared towards people who acknowledge that emotions play a significant role in the work-place - to people who deny that outright, this book would probably be a waste of time.

I saw that you have felt like this book does not contain any new facts, but only the facts that we already know, when you have finished reading around 60 pages of the book. Seemingly after that you have found interesting facts or learnt new things. Could you please share some of these valuable thoughts with the community. Thank you.

What I said was "The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial." Now that I've read the entire book... I still I stand by that statement. I see no reason to change it.

[stevie]

The context is "book displaying the thought fabrications of another". The context isn't books transmitting knowledge.

What we call 'knowledge' today is not 100% comprised of proven facts. It includes hypotheses as well. Some hypotheses cannot be subjected into experiment as well. They too may well be just 'thought fabrications'. The difference between thought fabrications and knowledge may not be always well demarcated.

I don't share you definition of knowledge, so there is no way to come to an agreement about what knowledge is.

I checked in the internet and various dictionaries the definition of 'Knowledge'. Even there it seems no single definition. I would like to know the definition that you accept. Thank you

What isn't a traditional discipline isn't knowledge.

[Sushan]

I just finished the book. Now that I've read the whole thing, I might recommend it to people who are interested in becoming more successful in the work-place. It's geared towards people who acknowledge that emotions play a significant role in the work-place - to people who deny that outright, this book would probably be a waste of time.

I saw that you have felt like this book does not contain any new facts, but only the facts that we already know, when you have finished reading around 60 pages of the book. Seemingly after that you have found interesting facts or learnt new things. Could you please share some of these valuable thoughts with the community. Thank you.

What I said was "The book doesn't contain any never-before-realized facts about reality. There is nothing in it that is shocking or even controversial." Now that I've read the entire book... I still I stand by that statement. I see no reason to change it.

I see. So the only thing that the author has done is taking a bunch of facts which are already known by many of us, and presented them in a way which will produce a way for us to use them to achieve a final goal. The author has done the analytical part which most of us do not try, although we already know all the facts.

[Sushan]

What we call 'knowledge' today is not 100% comprised of proven facts. It includes hypotheses as well. Some hypotheses cannot be subjected into experiment as well. They too may well be just 'thought fabrications'. The difference between thought fabrications and knowledge may not be always well demarcated.

I don't share you definition of knowledge, so there is no way to come to an agreement about what knowledge is.

I checked in the internet and various dictionaries the definition of 'Knowledge'. Even there it seems no single definition. I would like to know the definition that you accept. Thank you

What isn't a traditional discipline isn't knowledge.

Are all traditional disciplines are scientifically proven? Various societies have various traditional disciplines. Are all of these can be taken as knowledge? Is it impossible for a traditional discipline to be a myth or a superstition?

[stevie]

I don't share you definition of knowledge, so there is no way to come to an agreement about what knowledge is.

I checked in the internet and various dictionaries the definition of 'Knowledge'. Even there it seems no single definition. I would like to know the definition that you accept. Thank you

What isn't a traditional discipline isn't knowledge.

Are all traditional disciplines are scientifically proven? Various societies have various traditional disciplines. Are all of these can be taken as knowledge? Is it impossible for a traditional discipline to be a myth or a superstition?

The sciences being disciplines themselves "scientifically proven" does not apply as a measure. "traditional discipline" covers all kinds of knowledge, regardless of whether "Various societies have various traditional disciplines" or not.