What's The Ultimate Purpose Of Philosophy ? [Archive]

DavidS

13th December 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by stillmind@Dec 11 2003, 11:47 AM
it's final purpose was to help Humanity at large to become a less suffering entity.What else should we -really- use knowledge for?
Hello stillmind, interesting 'issue' you present for thought and thought-sharing.

It strikes 'me', by pop-window-coming up on 'my' mind-screen ;), that 'philosophy' is a 'catch-all' word referencing a broad category of thangs. There are many quite 'different' philosophies, as well as innumerable (probably as many as there are people) admixtures of them. Though they all fall into the same label-category, these have widely differing 'purposes', IMO. Methinks some of them are mainly designed to 'destroy' others, even. ;) The 'question' of the 'purpose' of 'philosophy' is thus overbroad and quite unlikely to 'lead' to an 'answer' which is meaningfully agreed upon, IMO.

Even pertaining to any 'particular' philosophy, it's 'purpose' doesn't just depend on its 'designer(s)'. Its 'user(s)' has(have) the final 'say' in this regard, I think. Like any tool or device or art·form, I suppose. Even something as simple as a hammer, which one might reasonably deduce was 'designed' for things like 'nailing' things together and (the other end) for pulling out nails, may be utilized for the 'purpose' of murdering someone, for instance, and therefore could be 'seen' and 'said' to have that as its 'purpose'. Methinks the 'disagreement', such as it was/is, between your and your friend (though, as has been pointed out, your 'answers' are not really mutually exclusive) reflect differences in your respective 'values' or 'value hierachies' more than anything else. The question-answer 'exercise' mainly serves as a 'Rorshach Test' kind of 'revelation', IMO.

As an addendum, let me share some of my 'values' pertaining to what I think the 'highest' 'purpose' of Life is, thus 'revealing' what the 'purpose' of thangs like 'philosophy' are to me.

The way I presently 'see' and 'feel' about thangs goes something like this: Life (a/k/a Love) is Creativity and Creativity is causal purpose in action. Life's most basic, inherent impulse is to actualize and experience joyful vitality in loving communion with other aspects of Being.

Thus, any particular philosophy which is not designed and/or used to serve such purpose is not worthy of being designated and considered a source of or means to 'wisdom' in my personal, subjective-value derived opinion.

This doesn't mean that 'my' 'truth' in this regard will be seen as and considered to be 'right' in any way by someone else. But 'framing' one's 'knowledge' and 'judgments' in this sort of way precludes vain and futile 'arguments' about what 'the' 'truth' about some matter 'really' is. I fully understand and respect the fact that you and your friend presently think about and value 'philosophy' in terms of its usefulness for 'helping humanity' to 'suffer less' and (detachedly?) 'finding truth', respectively. Each of our 'truths' is 'right' for the one 'embracing' it.

IMO, It's all a function of subjective desire and appreciation. There is no 'need' to 'argue' about and/or 'decide' which, if any of us, is 'right' or 'more' right about the matter at hand. There is also no 'need' to assert or imply that others are 'wrong' in terms of what they value because of what makes sense to them - except if they assert or imply that someone else is 'wrong' in such regards (as asheera, for instance, often does here)of course. In my 'view', which I submit for your and others' scrutiny and consideration, such kinds of activity are 'anti-Life' (i.e., 'sinful') in that they 'serve' 'purposes' which are contrary to the actualization and experience of joyful vitality in loving communion with other aspects of Being, which happens to be my personal 'pet' 'sacred cow' :lol: at present.

Here's to glorious love-'making' and cross-'fertilization' via verbally (or otherwise) communicated subjective meaning-and-value sharing! :D

If you feel like answering this question, still mind, let me ask you if, and if so, why you think of 'helping humanity' in terms of 'helping' it become a less suffering entity instead of a more joyful one. Same idea in different dress, I suppose. But in the one Hypnotherapy Seminar I attended, the presenter empasized the importance of framing 'suggestions' in positive terms. He said that the 'subconcious mind' was very 'literally' oriented, to the point of not registering 'no' -- thus, he taught, if you wanted to 'help' a person to not feel 'pain', for instance, it was advisable that one couch one's communications in terms like, "You will feel completey comfortable,", etc. To articulate something like "You will feel less (or no) 'pain'," he said, would only serve to focus the person's 'ruling' subconscious on the pain s/he was feeling, thereby 'accentuating' it and 'helping' it be ex·peer·ienced more intensely! I hope you can see the 'point' of my question.

Sincerely - David

vicente

13th December 2003, 03:48 AM

Philosophy is not the search for truth, but the "love of wisdom". What is wisdom and what is love, from an cerebo-centric point of view, have rather incoherent definitions.

As for purpose in life, I say stay with your first impulse, "to help Humanity at large to become a less suffering entity", which happens to be the purpose of bodhisattva's.

Vicente
:)

vicente

13th December 2003, 03:52 AM

"why you think of 'helping humanity' in terms of 'helping' it become a less suffering entity instead of a more joyful one. Same idea in different dress, I suppose".

Different idea totally DavidS.

Adding joy on top of suffering is a diversion,...useless happiness,..not real Joy.
Real Joy arises when suffering is dissolved.

Vicente
:)

rich

13th December 2003, 11:13 AM

stillmind, david, and Vicente,

Each person has their own philosophy. I do not think its purpose is

definable. Each person may define it differently than another

person. The very thought, of Philosophy's Purpose, being

made here and now, all will not agree with its definition.

Therefore, do not attempt to find if it has a purpose, just enjoy it

as it is. :)

stillmind

14th December 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by rich@Dec 12 2003, 12:21 PM
My purpose in answering you, is it makes me feel good. I do not believe, that humanity as a whole will benefit from my post, however, it would be a nice spinoff. So, my friend, stillmind, this is a post from an amature philosopher. I am not a real guru, so have no fear. Good Luck. ;) :D
lol, I had my shared of Gurus,so have no feras, I don't believe any of them.

stillmind

stillmind

14th December 2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 13 2003, 03:48 AM
Philosophy is not the search for truth, but the "love of wisdom". What is wisdom and what is love, from an cerebo-centric point of view, have rather incoherent definitions.

As for purpose in life, I say stay with your first impulse, "to help Humanity at large to become a less suffering entity", which happens to be the purpose of bodhisattva's.

Vicente
:)
Yeah, among other things...
According to this interesting oriental master,there's no such thing. I recommend you check him.

http://www.well.com/user/jct/

stillmind

vicente

14th December 2003, 03:09 AM

Yes, I'm quite familiar with UG, ie:
http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html

I been using his following quote since 1994, "the goal, which you have invented, is responsible for you search. As long as the goal is there, so long will the search continue"

However, that is quite different than "purpose in life". A purpose does not necessarily mean a goal.

UG also said, "freedom exists not in finding answers, but in the dissolution of all questions". This is basic Zen,...transcendence occurs when the koan dissappears.

Still, that does not invalidate "purpose".

Many Oriental masters look at purpose as dharma, ie:
the dharma of a tree is to provide shade.
the dharms of water is to quench thirst.
the dharma of man is to welcome.

Have you seen the bumper-sticker:
LOVE WAITS ONLY ON WELCOME

vicente
:)

DavidS

15th December 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 13 2003, 01:09 PM
LOVE WAITS ONLY ON WELCOME
Aye to that, which says it 'all', IMO. :D

sahyo

16th December 2003, 03:37 AM

There is also no 'need' to assert or imply that others are 'wrong' in terms of what they value because of what makes sense to them - except if they assert or imply that someone else is 'wrong' in such regards (as asheera, for instance, often does here)of course. In my 'view', which I submit for your and others' scrutiny and consideration, such kinds of activity are 'anti-Life' (i.e., 'sinful') in that they 'serve' 'purposes' which are contrary to the actualization and experience of joyful vitality in loving communion with other aspects of Being

:lol:

sahyo

16th December 2003, 08:56 AM

LOVE WAITS ONLY ON WELCOME

:lol:

rich

17th December 2003, 09:57 AM

David's turn. :ph34r:

DavidS

21st December 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by rich@Dec 16 2003, 07:57 PM
David's turn. :ph34r:
Hi, I've been away for a while. I hope what follows relates to what you had in mind when making the above 'prompt', richie. I could be wrong in that there are several thread-sequences woven together here.

I am not sure of waht asheera's smilies and comments are meant to indicate, indeed whether she even understands what I said or not, so let me restate: From where I stand, I find her queries and assertions are generally heavily slanted towards 'telling' (though often very 'styly', with question-marks etc. ) others that their 'way' of seeing-doing-n-being or that their 'way' of communicating their seeing-doings-n-beings are 'wrong', implying that they are misperceiving, etc., etc. the 'truth' of the matter, disrespecting the fact that such 'truth' is what makes sense of their reality and works for them, and that their words are their personally chosen ways of best communicating and sharing their 'truth' and adding to the communal meaningful-perspective pot truth-stew.

In other words, whatever is in her heart, I find asheera's manner of engagement to be anti-Life or 'sinful'. This comment falls into the category of the exception I mentioned regarding when it was 'appropriate' (i.e., pro-Life) to tell people they are doing 'wrong' (I refer you to the box of the relevant text quoted by asheera, which she responsed with the :lol: to.]

I would like to add that it is very easy to 'hide' the specific 'nature' of one's attitudes-and-intentions under the wild-n-woolly rug 'love' (which is a non-specific, or universal). You see, 'love' is the 'force' or 'power' behind all 'actions' - both those that are beneficial to Life and those that are anti-Life, or sinful. It is the same 'God' love-energy or -force which 'causes' both 'good' and 'evil', 'health' and 'harm', 'sanity' and 'insanity', 'unification' and 'division', 'creation' and 'destruction', etc. etc. etc.

Anything and everything that happens anywhere is an ex·press·ion of 'love'. Even a 'murderer' is ex·press·ing the 'love' 'feeling' that his subjective existence would be better off if the object of his 'hate' (which is just 'disappointed love', by the way) were 'eliminated' from the picture.

That asheera, or any one else, may feel 'love' in their hearts and think that is what they are being-n-doing when the 'do' or 'say' something or other only means that they are 'appreciating' or 'valueing' one or another actuality or potentiality, and spiritually 'devoting' themselves to that 'cause'. It says nothing about whether that 'cause' is pro-Life or anti-Life, benign or sinful, in spirit.

I believe that asheera genuinely feels 'love' in her heart and thinks that is what she is being-n-doing when she does and says her the 'do' or 'say' here. No 'argument' or 'disagreement' from me on that score. However, I sense and see the 'thrust' of her' 'love' as being anti-Life a lot (note, certainly not all) of the time. Which sense and sight I have shared to the best of my ability in an above-board fashion with her and everyone else here.

My comments regarding the box-quoted paragraph stand as before.

Sincerely - David

DavidS

22nd December 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 12 2003, 01:52 PM
Adding joy on top of suffering is a diversion,...useless happiness,..not real Joy.
Real Joy arises when suffering is dissolved.
I agree to a certain extent with you in what you have stated, vicente, but IMO you have grossly oversimplified spiritual dynamics pertaining to the matter.

Yes, IF one 'naively' simply goes about adding joy 'on top of' suffering (that is, without 'navigationally' changing one's perspective and attitude towards what one is ex·peer·ientially 'suffering'), then all one is trying to do is 'compensate' for the 'suffering' and such 'effort' will result in any 'happiness' and 'joy' being temporary at best.

However, 'wisely' or 'artfully' seeking joy, which includes reframing one's perpective and changing one's attitude towards whatever it is that one may be subjectively 'suffering', is a completely different matter.

Norman Cousins, author of Anatomy of an Illness, decided to disengage from 'focusing' on his life-threatening 'illness' and enjoy and appreciate (and thus preumably become more 'grateful' for) his life to the max by watching things like old funny movies in comlete leisure. His illness went away. He had to 'reach' and ex·peer·ience 'real' joy for his 'suffering' to be 'dissolved'. Heck, this is one of the main benefits of enjoying 'not-doing' (i.e. 'meditation') ain't it?

Your 'simplistic', 'cut-and-dry', 'there's-only-one-way-to-happiness' quote just doesn't square with the Facts of Life as I see 'em, vicente.

My 'point', in the post I made where I mentioned the 'practical wisdom' promoted by hypnotherapy practioners, is that is 'suffering' (and 'dissolving' it) is all what one 'primarily' focuses on, it not only not dissolve, but, fed by the 'spiritual' energy of such 'negative' attention, the suffering will most likely end up being further 'accentuated'.

The joy-seeking and -actualizing 'purpose' I am proposing as being sort of the the same thang as the suffering-dissolving and -ending 'purpose' is not something that is just 'added' 'on top of' suffering and (therfore) a mere 'diversion'. There are 'subtleties' involved, which your 'insistence' on a 'simple' 'hard line' 'policy' results in yor totally ignoring, vicente. IMO, your 'comment' is about as 'impractical' and 'mis·leading' as "Just say no" approaches to drugs, etc. advocated by you know who, I'm sure.
:)

sahyo

22nd December 2003, 06:59 AM

davidthinkingfearthought"simple"? davidthinkingthinks

a random hack

22nd December 2003, 12:48 PM

Yes, IF one 'naively' simply goes about adding joy 'on top of' suffering (that is, without 'navigationally' changing one's perspective and attitude towards what one is ex·peer·ientially 'suffering'), then all one is trying to do is 'compensate' for the 'suffering' and such 'effort' will result in any 'happiness' and 'joy' being temporary at best.

Of course, the reverse may also apply, where 'one' simply adds suffering and complication on top of simplicity and joy :D :lol:

sahyo

22nd December 2003, 04:57 PM

DavidS

23rd December 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by a random hack@Dec 21 2003, 10:48 PM
Of course, the reverse may also apply, where 'one' simply adds suffering and complication on top of simplicity and joy :D :lol:
Since I am not familiar with such kind 'simplicity' (or thinking in such 'terms'), care to give me a 'for example', so I can 'get' what you are talking about and its relevance to what's been said?

a random hack

24th December 2003, 12:45 PM

well, let's say you are an artist...

simplicity and joy might involve just fnding materials at hand, and using them to art.

complexity and suffering might come when some one criticises your arting, and you decide to go to 'learn to paint properly' :D and end up thinking about art, or even quiting, because it becomes too hard.

rich

25th December 2003, 09:19 AM

random posted complexity and suffering might come when some one criticises your arting, and you decide to go to 'learn to paint properly' and end up thinking about art, or even quiting, because it becomes too hard.

Never give up the ship, Do not become discouraged, @times the criticizer is just plain jealous or envious of your talents. :)

DavidS

25th December 2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by a random hack@Dec 23 2003, 10:45 PM
complexity and suffering might come when some one criticises your arting, and you decide to go to 'learn to paint properly' :D and end up thinking about art, or even quiting, because it becomes too hard.
Oh, thanks. Now I click-see 'get' the kind of 'adding' (suffering) 'on top of' (joy) you are talking about. And, yup, I think 'successfully' 'navigating' the often 'gratuitious' ;) stream of such happening-variables one encounters in 'real' life ain't a simple, just-apply-this-or-that-conceptual-n-procedural-'formula' deal either (though, of course, any given one or more [such 'formulas']may indeed be helpful in that regard, if applied 'wisely' that is).
:)

a random hack

27th December 2003, 10:47 AM

Never give up the ship, Do not become discouraged, @times the criticizer is just plain jealous or envious of your talents.

:D yup, that 'criticizer' is a pesky fellow! :)

Oh, thanks. Now I click-see 'get' the kind of 'adding' (suffering) 'on top of' (joy) you are talking about. And, yup, I think 'successfully' 'navigating' the often 'gratuitious' stream of such happening-variables one encounters in 'real' life ain't a simple, just-apply-this-or-that-conceptual-n-procedural-'formula' deal either (though, of course, any given one or more [such 'formulas']may indeed be helpful in that regard, if applied 'wisely' that is).

:D yup, the Answer is, there is no Answer :D

sonrisa

27th December 2003, 12:43 PM

Random, that is a very profound truth!
:D

a random hack

28th December 2003, 11:49 AM

oh, sorry :D :lol: ;)

sonrisa

28th December 2003, 02:34 PM

sorry? for telling the truth?

DavidS

29th December 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by a random hack@Dec 27 2003, 09:49 PM
oh, sorry :D :lol: ;)
Aaaack! No-I throats can't ingest compliments? Apparently not straightforwardly, at least.

vicente

29th December 2003, 03:26 AM

the Answer is, there is no Answer

Nope! No profound truth in that.

The answer, as all E'Beings understand, is in dissolving the question.

For example, what's the sound of one hand clapping?
The answer is not that there is no answer.

Vicente
:)

a random hack

29th December 2003, 06:25 AM

:lol:

seems there's plenty of answers :)

vicente

29th December 2003, 01:25 PM

Again RH, you appear to have missed the question.

Vicente
:)

thirst4sun

29th December 2003, 01:31 PM

I agree with your reason for Philosophy

a random hack

30th December 2003, 08:18 AM

there was A question?

which one would you like answered first? :lol:

sonrisa

31st December 2003, 01:07 PM

Vicente, I have always wanted to know that! What is the sound of one hand clapping? :)

ranks right up there with what does a Scotsman wear under his kilt!!
(there's an answer to that one too!) :D

DavidS

2nd January 2004, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by sonrisa@Dec 30 2003, 11:07 PM
ranks right up there with what does a Scotsman wear under his kilt!!
(there's an answer to that one too!) :D
Reminds me of something I heard a long time ago:

A curious lady finally got up the gumption to approach a kilt-wearing Scotsman and say, "I've always wanted to know, is anything worn under your kilt?"

His 'answer' ;) was, "Noo, mum, it's just as good as new." ! :lol:

rich

2nd January 2004, 03:55 AM

Another Scotsman joke:

Why do they bury a Scotsman on the side of a hill?

answer below:

because he is dead. :lol: :angry: ;)

sonrisa

2nd January 2004, 09:23 AM

sorry RT, but I gotta fess up, I like David's joke better.

rich

2nd January 2004, 11:41 AM

Sonrisa,

And so do I!

stillmind

25th January 2004, 03:24 AM

Hello,y'all ! listen carefuly ,lol
There's a great exposition at Mind-brain.com about the future of consciousness, perhaps you'll like to check it out ?

....and why this forum doesn't notify when a reply is posted ? (if is a matter of $$$, maybe we can all chip in)
I'm except since I provided the idea, :-)

stillmind :boxing:

DavidS

25th January 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by stillmind@Jan 24 2004, 01:24 PM
....and why this forum doesn't notify when a reply is posted ? ...
stillmind :boxing:
The 'mystery' is buried deep in cyberspace. Check out your Email (preference) settings at your Control Panel.
:computer:

stillmind

27th January 2004, 12:35 AM

Thank you, I tried that, It doesn't wanna work !

ok, I'll live,lol

Stillmind

sonrisa

27th January 2004, 03:16 AM

[QUOTE=stillmind,Jan 24 2004, 03:24 PM]

....and why this forum doesn't notify when a reply is posted ? (if is a matter of $$$, maybe we can all chip in)
I'm except since I provided the idea, :-)

isn't "track this topic" sposed to notify you when a reply is posted?

rich

27th January 2004, 03:39 AM

stillmind,

BY JOVE, I think sonrisa's suggestion is worth a try. Try it and save. :P :D <_<

slayer

28th January 2004, 03:44 AM

Stillmind,

You asked a very straight-forward question which has been met with ridiculous responses, e.g., Rich's and David S's. I hope to give you at least a straight-forward response.

The aim of philosophy is to clarify the concepts, notions, and ideas (e.g., happiness) that we use in trying to understand a great many phenomena.

You seem to be of the opinion that the attainment of knowledge (or, the clarifying of these concepts, which lead to a better understanding of them) is not itself an end (an ultimate goal or purpose). But not all philosophical answers, when we're lucky to attain them, can be used to better mankind's lot. Some such answers will really be trivial with respect to the improvement of man's happiness or well-being on this planet. But all philosophical fields (e.g., epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc.) have this one thing in common: they all attempt to clarify the notions involved in attempting to understand -- and hence hopefully answer -- their respective questions. This is why I claim that philosophy's purpose is to clarify concepts, notions, and ideas.

I hope this helped,

slayer

slayer

28th January 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by rich@Dec 12 2003, 10:13 PM
stillmind, david, and Vicente,

Each person has their own philosophy. I do not think its purpose is

definable. Each person may define it differently than another

person. The very thought, of Philosophy's Purpose, being

made here and now, all will not agree with its definition.

Therefore, do not attempt to find if it has a purpose, just enjoy it

as it is. :)

This is an example of the relativist and irrelevant responses I referred to.

"Each person has his own philosophy" is irrelevant because what is going on is an equivocation on "philosophy." Stillmind is talking about philosophy, as is practiced by academic philosophers and as is generally understood (you know, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, etc.), not "philosophy" as in 'an individua'ls life-guiding principles.'

Only a relativist mind could so thoroughly misconstrue such a straight-forward question as posted by Stillmind.

As evidence for this relativism, notice how he discourages anyone from seeking even the purpose of this type of "philosophy." We should abstain from such critical analysis lest we should offend someone, lest we should judge, lest we should find someone else's guiding principles inferior. This is all intellectual folderol, and it should be dismissed as such, because even if the discussion was about each person's life-guiding principles, the question "What is the purpose of a life-guiding principle" would still be worth discussing, even if each had a different "philosophy."

There is no truth, wail the relativists, thereby contradicting themselves.

slayer

slayer

28th January 2004, 11:30 AM

[QUOTE=stillmind,Dec 11 2003, 11:47 AM]
(1) Even something as simple as a hammer, which one might reasonably deduce was 'designed' for things like 'nailing' things together and (the other end) for pulling out nails, may be utilized for the 'purpose' of murdering someone, for instance, and therefore could be 'seen' and 'said' to have that as its 'purpose'.....

(2) The way I presently 'see' and 'feel' about thangs goes something like this: Life (a/k/a Love) is Creativity and Creativity is causal purpose in action.

(3) Each of our 'truths' is 'right' for the one 'embracing' it.
Another example of the relativism rampant in our times.

I had to restrict myself to the above three snipets of stupidity because addressing more would take me into tomorrow.

re (1): He's such a relativist that he can't agree that the purpose of a hammer is to hammer and extract nails. Listen, just because someone sticks their finger up their ass doesn't mean the purpose of the finger is to anally probe oneself.

re (2): Need I say anything about this? If life is love, then when someone is trying not to drown, they're trying to stay in love? When someone takes my life, they're taking my love? This is just nonsense, of course, but nonsense this relativist takes seriously and actually believes, I'm afraid to say.

re (3) No, relativist, the truth is not subjective. Each of our truths? Relativist dribble! Listen, if there are nine planets in our solar system, then if you claim there are 8, then you're wrong. It's not that your truth is right for you and my truth is right for me, it's that you're wrong.

The question was about philosophy's purpose. Nevermind whether it does have a purpose or not, this relativist wants to claim that whichever position you take will be true (for you). This is stupidity par excellence. The truth isn't determined by what you say is true, it's something outside you, something you come to arrive at. You don't decide the truth, you discover it. That difference will be beyond any relativist, and so I expect it to be beyond most people who post on this site.

But, alas, I do not include everyone here, for I have seen some sensible folk, ones to which I direct my posts.

If you think I'm angry and judgemental, you'd be right. If you think I'm wrong, you'd be wrong. Of course if you're a relativist, you can't even say that I'm wrong, because that would go against your own relativist tenet: everyone is right.

2 + 2 = 4,

slayer

DavidS

29th January 2004, 02:24 AM

Wecome, fesity 'slayer'
Originally posted by slayer@Jan 27 2004, 09:30 PM
Of course if you're a relativist, you can't even say that I'm wrong, because that would go against your own relativist tenet: everyone is right.
You're 'right' about this, except I could say that you are 'wrong', I just wouldn't because your conclusions logically flow from your way of 'axiomatically' 'framing' things.

2 + 2 = 4
This is 'true' only in agreed-upon-simple-'abstraction' (or 'reduction') terms. The fact is that what any two (or more) people each experientially 'perceive' (i.e., what they each actually ex·peer·ience, or 'know') when 'viewing' the same atom, set of words, sunset, whatever, is significantly 'different' from the other (from the other's actual ex·peerience). And, though this may be (subjectively) 'reductively' 'thought of' as being reflective of no more that a 'relativistic' 'difference', the FACT, I suggest to you, is that such 'differences' are actually absolute, or 'absolutely so', because all ex·peer·ience (and 'perception' and 'thought' about it), IOW, all 'consciousness', is 'subjective'.

I appreciate your expression of an alternate point of view pertaining to things I said. I see that you are 'right', that things make totally coherent sense in your frame of reference (i.e., given your 'axiomatic' subjective-reality-constructions). I hope you are able (if not now, then someday) to 'see' that I am also 'right', though by different de·finite·ion (or abstract·ion).

Salut :thumbsup:

slayer

29th January 2004, 03:10 AM

'
...your conclusions logically flow from your way of 'axiomatically' 'framing' things.

[QUOTE]2 + 2 = 4...The fact is that what any two (or more) people each experientially 'perceive' (i.e., what they each actually ex·peer·ience, or 'know') when 'viewing' the same atom, set of words, sunset, whatever, is significantly 'different' from the other (from the other's actual ex·peerience).

Hello David S,

I'm going to address two of the things you said for two reasons. One, I think my response will be quite convincing to anyone of even limited intelligence. Two, I tend to think you're not stupid, though I've called some of the things you've said stupid. I do think though that you're very confused about how language works and the truth. That is, you're a relativist about truth.

You admit that what I say logically flows. But logic just is the means by which we reason. That's why you can't say I'm wrong, because my argument is very powerful. That power is derived from the coherence and veracity of my premises. So, it's not that I use logic and you don't to reason, it's that logic is how one reasons.

Yet you seem to miss a very obvious fact. And that's that in your response to me, and in many of your posts, you are using the same ole garden variety logic that I'm using, otherwise nothing you would say would have any weight behind it. You, sir, use logic, just poorly at times.

The second thing I want to address is this claim about how people experience different things when looking at the same things.

You make my argument easy since you've decided to take on "2 + 2 = 4."

Forget the symbol '2' and forget the word "two" for a moment. I don't want you to accuse me of having a different meaning than you. Think of it like this. Look at how many hands you have. I hope you won't challenge me on what I refer to by "hands." Now, don't label the quantity with "2" or "two" but just look at them and think of how many you see. Now, pretend another person came along (with the normal quantity of hands a person has) and put their hands next to yours. Now look at how many there are. Again, don't give labels to the quanitities, just look at how many you see.

Okay, if you only spoke Spanish you'd call the quantity before you "quatro", or if you only spoke English "four." It doesn't matter what label you attach to the quantity before you, the important thing is that whatever label you choose, it refers to that specific quantity before you.

So now, since I was writing in English, I claimed that "2 + 2 = 4." This is the way to symbolize the total quantity of what happens when you put the quantity of hands one person has together with the quantity of hands a second person has. These same symbols are used by many people of different languages; ancient Romans being at least one exception.

My point: the words we use refer to specific things. Sometimes a word refers to different things, but so far as we're clear on which meaning we're using, then we can communicate. So, when I say "2 + 2 = 4", it's not that I might be perceiving something different than you, it's that 2 is 2 in any language. Don't confuse this with, 2 is "2" in any language. That last claim means that everyone represents the number 2 with the symbol "2." I'm claiming that the number 2 is the same for everyone.

And of course you're smart enough to understand that "2 + 2 = 4" is a claim about numbers, not symbols, so you're mistaken to focus the attention on what one might possibly perceive. If you perceive that you have 3 hands, then you're mistaken, you only have 2. If you symbolize 2 as "3" in your language and 4 as "4", then we're in agreement and you're just making a claim about language, not mathematics or the truth.

So, stop confusing matters. This reply took some considerable time to articulate, and it'll be the last time I spend so much time on such an elementary point, one that most would and should concede.

I'm not here to undo everything you've learned poorly. I am here to defend my claims against anyone who offers a counter-argument. I will add: One in English (so, asheera, you needn't ever address me in your Bizarro English expecting a reply. I won't waste my time deciphering what you could easily write in English).

A jedi desires not these things,

slayer

sahyo

29th January 2004, 05:17 AM

(so, asheera, you needn't ever address me in your Bizarro English expecting a reply. I won't waste my time deciphering what you could easily write in English).

:lol:

slayer imagining
Bizarro English
easily write in English
expecting a reply

a random hack

29th January 2004, 09:55 AM

(1) Even something as simple as a hammer, which one might reasonably deduce was 'designed' for things like 'nailing' things together and (the other end) for pulling out nails, may be utilized for the 'purpose' of murdering someone, for instance, and therefore could be 'seen' and 'said' to have that as its 'purpose'.....

re (1): He's such a relativist that he can't agree that the purpose of a hammer is to hammer and extract nails. Listen, just because someone sticks their finger up their ass doesn't mean the purpose of the finger is to anally probe oneself.

unless you are working as a proctologist, of course :lol:

rich

29th January 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by slayer+Jan 28 2004, 11:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slayer @ Jan 28 2004, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--rich@Dec 12 2003, 10:13 PM
stillmind, david, and Vicente,

Each person has their own philosophy. I do not think its purpose is

definable. Each person may define it differently* than another

person. The very thought,* of Philosophy's Purpose, being* *

made here and now, all will not agree with its definition.

Therefore, do not attempt* to find if it has a purpose, just enjoy it

as it is. :)

This is an example of the relativist and irrelevant responses I referred to.

"Each person has his own philosophy" is irrelevant because what is going on is an equivocation on "philosophy." Stillmind is talking about philosophy, as is practiced by academic philosophers and as is generally understood (you know, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, etc.), not "philosophy" as in 'an individua'ls life-guiding principles.'

Only a relativist mind could so thoroughly misconstrue such a straight-forward question as posted by Stillmind.

As evidence for this relativism, notice how he discourages anyone from seeking even the purpose of this type of "philosophy." We should abstain from such critical analysis lest we should offend someone, lest we should judge, lest we should find someone else's guiding principles inferior. This is all intellectual folderol, and it should be dismissed as such, because even if the discussion was about each person's life-guiding principles, the question "What is the purpose of a life-guiding principle" would still be worth discussing, even if each had a different "philosophy."

There is no truth, wail the relativists, thereby contradicting themselves.

slayer[/b][/quote]
slayer:

Are you trying to 'slay' me?

After quoting me, in indigo my words must have impacted your thinking.

A true philosophers response to your criticism of me, would be, "Hmmm".

What posted by Rich. The very thought, of Philosophy's Purpose,

being made here and now, all will not agree with its definition.

Therefore, do not attempt to find if it has a purpose, just enjoy it as it is.

My post points the way to happiness, and living each moment as it is now, rather than searching for answers to questions that have no answers, except accepting what we already think we know as acceptable answers. Just enjoy it as it is!

What is your definition of a relativist?

slayer

29th January 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by rich@Jan 28 2004, 11:00 PM
(1) After quoting me, in indigo my words must have impacted your thinking.

(2) A true philosophers response to your criticism of me, would be, "Hmmm".

(3) My post points the way to happiness, and living each moment as it is now, rather than searching for answers to questions that have no answers, except accepting what we already think we know as acceptable answers. Just enjoy it as it is!

What is your definition of a relativist?

re (1): Bad assumption. No, Rich, I'm simply a novice at quoting people, such that sometimes I get that little box around the quote and sometimes I don't. The indigo is just what happened, I didn't intend it. So you really shouldn't draw any conclusions about my mental state from it.

re (2): No, Rich, since you have no idea what a true philosopher would do, I'll inform you. He would respond to my claim. What he wouldn't do is try to make guesses about why I made the claim. What he wouldn't do is say "hmmm" as if that somehow accomplished anything. Because although all of you are so fond of "hmm" and an assortment of yellow faces, they don't pursuade, they only shed light on your inability to convey the point you're trying to make -- so, goes the thinking, I'll just show what I feel about the claim that I can't refute. Thanks for all your emotes.

re (3): Let's pretend that your post does point the way to happiness. Of course we're only pretending, because you have no idea what happiness is, let alone how to achieve it. But, like I said, let's grant you that it did do this pointing. You are mistaken that there was "no answer," for I obviously gave one and one you haven't called me on. That is, you can't come up with a good counter-argument to my claim. So, not only are you wrong about there being no answer, you're wrong because your post is not germane. Even if there was no answer to the question "What's the purpose of philosophy?", the philosophical and relevant thing to do is to analyse why there is no answer. What is there about philosophy that prevents us from coming up with an answer. And your equivocating on "philosophy" worked contrary to such a discussion.

A relativist is one who denies that there are certain kinds of universal truths (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition). A relativist about truth, such as yourself, is a person who thinks the truth is what you decide it is.

By the way, it's not MY definition of a relativist, it's THE definition of a relativist.

Let me ask you, how is it that you come to know these questions have no answers? It seems to be that you'd be the last to know, since you won't even take them up.

Enjoy bliss,

slayer

rich

29th January 2004, 01:20 PM

slayer,

hmmm :lol: :ph34r: :hahaha: :nono: :unsure:

????????????????????????

DavidS

30th January 2004, 01:01 AM

You do indeed 'slay' me, slayer; don't get me 'relativistically' 'wrong' now...I don't mean with your Sir Gallahad emulating logic-sword, but a la :hahaha: a jousting with mindmills, Don Quixote! :lol:

Caers Mane

21st February 2004, 11:25 AM

I think that the purpose of philosophy is to explore the many facets of truth and to find your own way with in those truths. I don't think philosophy is helpful to the majority of humankind, simply because very few people are willing or able to accept any form of real truth and it therefor hurts them and their world.
philosophy is a search. for inner truth reflected in the outer world. for making sense out of things that don't appear to make sense. it is also taking apart the formulaic and accepted viewpoint and finding something new and interesting and stimulating within it.
thats what i have always believed. that philosophy is there to expand your mind and challenge your outlook and beliefs.

slayer

25th March 2004, 06:38 AM

Hello Caers Mane,

I wanted to comment on your post because I found some things right in it, but also these right things were mixed in with a lot of wrong things.

Philosophy is a means to better understanding the world. By 'world' philosophers mean 'universe' or 'all there is,' and this is my meaning too. So the quest is for truth. I'm not sure what it is to "find your own way with in [sic] those truths."

Agree with you, philosophy isn't helpful for the majority. I also agree that the majority are averse to the truth, something objective. But another reason why philosophy is unhelpful to them is because they don't know how to do it.

Yes, in one sense, philosophy is very much a search, a search for the truth.

But it's not a search "for the inner truth reflected in the outer world." The inner truth? The truth is something outside of you, so you're not searching for anything inner here.

Yet it is for making sense of things that don't appear to make sense. But these things will make sense once you understand their true nature, not once you discover something within you.

It's breaking from the formulaic and accepted only if the formulaic and accepted is wrong. Other than that, the formulaic and accepted is just the way to go.

Philosophy is there to expand your mind, but not just in any direction, but hopefully in the right direction. This will require that you are at least open to there being a right direction. Many people are not open to this, subscribing as they do to relativism.

Philosophy is a skill. Some people are better at it than others. It requires practice, and still even with lots of practice one might never be even competent at it.

There was a thread about what reason is, and then there was a bunch of nonsense in the form of attempted answers. Reasoning is what we do to sort out and make sense of what we experience. You can reason well or reason poorly, and to reason well you must use logic. Logic then is the basis for good reasoning.

slayer

sahyo

16th April 2004, 03:36 PM

:D

post from a poetry forum:

anirbus posting phantasm (dv):

**inane comment**
dv, what's that weighing down, one shoulder?
is that a philosophy boulder?
QUICK! DROP AND ROLL LEFT!
i know you can get out
from under it!!!!
LOL
;)

:D

sonrisa

18th April 2004, 03:58 PM

thirst4sun

21st April 2004, 07:05 PM

I agree with you , that we [I]SHOULD use philosophy to help humanity but this is not always the case.

todd

30th June 2004, 05:26 PM

I partially agree with David.

It is true that philosophy was defined as the search for truth(sic). The fact is philosophy doesn't have any rules or laws, except maybe logic. True and false are only logic elements. Philosophy is about the meaning of life. Logic is not.
This is why a lot of times we are using concepts of good and wrong, evil. Is logic about good or evil? Of course not.
If you're saying that philosophy is meant to help humanity, youre talking in terms of good and evil. What does help means?
Help humanity do what? reach where? Live? Die? Live is good ? Die is wrong? How about love?
This is what philosophy is about, and I think pure logic cannot help here.
The paradox is that we are using logic to talk about good and evil.
But is the logic good or evil? Is the good true or false?
It is like a game, and people like playing it.

slayer

11th July 2004, 07:46 AM

Can we have a moratorium on cliches and absurd claims?

Let's study Todd's unfailing mind...

It is true that philosophy was defined as the search for truth(sic). The fact is philosophy doesn't have any rules or laws, except maybe logic.

Except maybe logic? That's like saying that the Grand Canyon wouldn't be a canyon, except for the big hole in the middle.

True and false are only logic elements. Philosophy is about the meaning of life. Logic is not.

You neglect to mention that we use logic in doing philosophy, so logic is essential for determining the meaning of life, if there is 'a meaning of life.'

You're conflating formal logic as a dintinct subfield in philosophy from logic, which is the basis of good reasoning. If you don't like truth and falsity, how about 'is the case' and 'is not the case'?

This is why a lot of times we are using concepts of good and wrong, evil. Is logic about good or evil? Of course not.

Logic is used to analyse just about everything, to include ethical questions, so you're wrong again, Todd.

If you're saying that philosophy is meant to help humanity, youre talking in terms of good and evil. What does help means?

help: vt. 1: to give assistance or support to 2 a : to make more pleasant or bearable : IMPROVE, RELIEVE b archaic : RESCUE, SAVE 3 a : to be of use to : BENEFIT b : to further the advancement of : PROMOTE 4 a : to change for the better --- Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.

Help humanity do what? reach where? Live? Die? Live is good ? Die is wrong? How about love?
This is what philosophy is about, and I think pure logic cannot help here.

Pure logic? What is that? Who said anything about it? How about living better? No, dying isn't wrong. What about love? I saw a book about the philosophy of love the other day! Looked cheesy though.

The paradox is that we are using logic to talk about good and evil.

No, the only paradox is that you think there's a paradox. But keep posting, I'm sure the latter paradox will disappear.

But is the logic good or evil? Is the good true or false?
It is like a game, and people like playing it.

Yes, but it isn't a game, that's why it's only like a game. And what follows from the fact that people like playing with it? That's it's bad? That's it's good? That it's evil? Careful, don't contradict yourself in your fury to respond.

Logic is the body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. Yes, evaluates! That is, there are good and bad arguments. I have used logic to show you, Todd, why your opinions are so ill-thought out. You would do well to study logic. Otherwise, you'll continue to believe things without justification -- a road to stupidity.

P :: P,

slayer

sahyo

11th July 2004, 08:02 AM

Intellect is borrowed, intelligence is your own. Intellect is logical, rational; intelligence is more than logical. It is super-logical, it is intuitive.

- Osho

sahyo

11th July 2004, 08:07 AM

slayer

Life does not listen to your logic, it goes on its own way, undisturbed.
You have to listen to life, life will not listen to your logic,
it does not bother about your logic.

- Osho

todd

11th July 2004, 12:12 PM

slayer, do not try to provoke me, because I do not say what I know or what I think I know, I do not copy/paste what some genius said, but I say what I think, and I am trying to be honest. What I know doesn’t help me anymore

It is true that philosophy was defined as the search for truth(sic). The fact is philosophy doesn't have any rules or laws, except maybe logic. todd
Except maybe logic? That's like saying that the Grand Canyon wouldn't be a canyon, except for the big hole in the middle. slayer

What else is logic, slayer, but a set of widely accepted concepts. If you can find logic in life itself, well, I can’t.
I cannot describe feelings using logic.
I cannot describe chaos using logic.
I cannot describe me using logic.
People say philosophy is the love of wisdom. Is it any logic in love, any logic in wisdom?
Logic is just a tool, it never proves anything by itself. The arguments, variables are not part of logic.
I can for example build my own logic. Let’s say:
If a=b and b=c, logic says a=c. Now, I define my own rule, and I say that “a” never equals “c”. Can you say I’m right or wrong? No, because I just stated a rule, my rule… I did not reach any conclusion yet. If I will reach one, you will try to prove me wrong. Using what? Your tools, your logic, same variables. I do not say you won’t get a wide acceptance of your thought, but you will not prove “me” that I’m wrong.
This is what "maybe" was about.

help: vt. 1: to give assistance or support to 2 a : to make more pleasant or bearable : IMPROVE, RELIEVE b archaic : RESCUE, SAVE 3 a : to be of use to : BENEFIT b : to further the advancement of : PROMOTE 4 a : to change for the better --- Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. slayer

When I was talking about “help humanity” I was trying to show that in this expression lies an answer, like DavidS explained. Help is about good, there is no help in evil.

Logic is the body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. Yes, evaluates! That is, there are good and bad arguments. I have used logic to show you, Todd, why your opinions are so ill-thought out. You would do well to study logic. Otherwise, you'll continue to believe things without justification -- a road to stupidity. slayer

You used your logic ( actually I think you didn’t do very well here) to show me what? That in fact you agree with me.
The difference between us, is I can see what you mean, I understand you, and I accept your statements where you honestly express your thoughts. But I see it as a part of a much bigger “whole” where there is space my modest ideas too.
And I do not find pleasure in being rude.

beesting42

22nd July 2004, 12:22 PM

Lets do some linguistic investigation here... phil=love, soph=wisdom.
Greek right? maybe latin... whatever.

In college, intellectuals have outlined some sort of abitrary system of what is and is not philosophy... their failure lies in their approach. They beleive (many of them anyway... Which seems to includes you slayer) that there is some discernable and provabe method to the universe that they can right down and follow to a "T" thus avoiding all mistakes and problems... This mode is consistent with a basic fear and distrust of reality, religions seek the same as do many others... If there was a right way what is it? please tell me, and if you do answer ask yourself this... "why is everyone in college still talking about this?"

beesting42

22nd July 2004, 12:29 PM

I forgot to mention the essential failure in the last post... people do not agree, thus it is a big failure...

And slayer I know nothing but I once read "no unkind man is enlightened" hey maybe you dont even want to be enlightened... Like I said I know absolutely nothing

beesting42

22nd July 2004, 12:32 PM

I dont even know if you are kind or not! :unsure:

sonrisa

22nd July 2004, 02:01 PM

he's not

Comus

10th August 2004, 12:47 AM

A friend of mine asked me this question after telling me what he thought. I will tell you what I think since my friend is not here: I believe that all philosophy is existential in nature. However, consider that many small questions are often the most interesting; St. Aquinas was trying to defend that Christianity was the fall of Rome. A very normal thought during the period. But along the way, the question of how free will and an omniscient/omnipotent God can coexist. To concern ourselves, or to attempt to find a question that is the locus of philosophy seems too macroscopic to be helpful. But, if we need one, then it's to find meaning since our anxiety worries us that there may be none.

Comus

10th August 2004, 01:14 AM

NOT ALL PHILOSOPHY USES LOGIC. Take Nietzsche, for instance. He rarely uses logic and if he does use it, he does so mockingly. Try describing absurdity with logic and you'll be found wanting. And yet, absurdity is a widely investigated philosophical dilemma. Camus doesn't use logic for most of his arguments, nor does Kierkegaard. Logicians would often write that even though absurdity has not been logically expressed, it is because man thus far has an incapacity to do so. However, absurdity being expressed logically is a contradiction of absurdity itself--and of logic. After all, if a logician were to express absurdity logically, it would be detrimental to both schools--which is absurd (thereby reinforcing the existence of absurdity and emphasizing the fail of logic). When dealing with an abstract circumstance (ie: man not being capable of logically expressing that which has not yet been logically expressed) we can also assume that without the impediment of man, logic would be able to express anything, which is the implication. By definition, absurdity cannot be expressed using a sense-seeking reasoning. To logically prove or disprove absurdity would be, indeed, absurd in itself. So whether logic conquers absurdity or does not conquer absurdity, logic in both cases equally fails. Thus, we are left with a short, short list of philosophers who did not use logic. Dostoevsky, Nabakov, Batailles, Nietzsche, Camus...