Is this statement philosophically correct?

Question

WITHOUT THE UNIVERSALS WITH WHICH THE THOUGHTS ABOUT YOURSELF ARE MADE, NO THOUGHT ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOURSELF WOULD BE MADE.

Is this statement philosophically correct?

Answer 1

That is what the 'self awareness' the unique gift to only humans, is all about ! Where could a thought occur other than in self ? And once it is within the self, what else can it be about ? Just the way the self has perceived, just anything, within or without !
There is however one lone exception, which is not relevant to the purpose of the question.

Answer 2

Pl clearify what do you want to say. I am not getting the
correct meaning of statement and what I am getting says
this is not correct.

If some body asks me other than you in my regular life I will
say it is correct. Defination of philosophical statements is
1) which will not understood by simple person
2) should have said universal trooth
3) the language used shoud be complicated i.e. round
4) the statement should have capecity to get explained
in 45mins i.e. one lecture hour.

I think this statement will pass first 1,2,3 tests 4 you have to
decide. As it got 75% marks so the statement is
philosophically correct.

Answer 3

If we look at the origin of thoughts,.... any thoughts..... it rises in the mind concerning an object. The object could be you or anything else.

We relate to the world around us with the help of our sense organs and they constantly feed the information . Some are stored for recall later. Some simply come and go. Thought about ourselves is no different . About ourselves the thoughts are formed by our own views and from the views of the others . I donot clearly see the meabing of the word "universal" in this sentence. In a conventional manner the word means only that which is applicable at all places and circumstances.

Answer 4

I would say the contrary is true: With out the or minus the abstraction for the universal concept all the forces of the senses would rule and identity would be reduced to the forces of unconscious need, the self then is unreflective in its self and has not self consciousness, perhaps not consciousness of self, its self consciousness.

In other words, self awareness is on at the moment of pain or fear of an external. 'Thought' in the equilibrium condition, no pain or fear, is in the there-then, not the here-now, in the hunt not internal diagnostic or internal hunt.

Answer 5

No, I don't think it is phrased right. It should be better understood if: Without the universal thought for others, no thought about anything other than yourself would be made. Meaning, if we are notpreoccupied with the other universal tasks and responsibilities, we would only be thinking about ourselves. That self thinkinking is the egoist in us, the selfishness, eccentricity, and the like.

Answer 6

My thoughts come.... stay.... and go... as natural as the breeze without questioning about universality hence mind remains cool without complicating with philosophical thinking. I being the part of the universe anything applicable to me may be applicable to the universe and visa versa.

Answer 7

In order to determine whether a statement is philosophically correct, you first have to define your terms.

First of all, how are you defining "philosophy"? If you mean, "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct," then it would necessarily beg the next question.

How do you define "universals"? I mean, specifically, what are the universals to which you refer?

Answer 8

TO BE CORRECT, THE STATEMENT IS TO BE MODIFIED AS UNDER ~ WITHOUT THE UNIVERSALS WITH WHICH THE THOUGHTS ABOUT YOURSELF ARE MADE, NO THOUGHT ABOUT ANYTHING INCLUDING ABOUT YOURSELF WOULD BE MADE.

Answer 9

Since you CANNOT think about yourself WITHOUT SUCH UNIVERSALS, you CANNOT think about yourself WITHOUT THEM--it's not as though there's a COMPLEMENTARY way that you can BOTH think about yourself WHILE NOT thinking about yourself! Perhaps you're referring to some sort of GENERALIZATION about yourself, in which case you can think about yourself but NOT GENERALIZE to anything OTHER THAN YOURSELF! In such a case, these would therefore NOT BE UNIVERSALS! It seems to me that we're talking about INDUCTION without actually having "complete knowledge" about the UNIVERSALS, which is INFERENCE, or however you RECOGNIZE it!

Answer 10

yes,it means that if you don't have any information about yourself, you can never know about the things around you because the thoughts about yourself are the same with other things