Society

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

I have had a thoguht that really scares me.

History and socitey infulence thought and the subjective. A man in the 21th century can't think like a man in acient Rome. Too much has happened, culture has changed. This would mean our thoughts are slaves to our own time and circumstance.

"The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." --Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1.

if this is all true, then the mind is not free to be what it wants to be. This is really frightening to me.

[scameter]

I think that our minds are heavily influenced by our times and circumstance, and that we think based on what we have experienced, but I also think that there are some aspects of human consciousness that have always been the same. For instance, the aspects of the human mind expressed in mythology are able to be understood by anyone of any time, and felt as natural to them, because they express natural, inherent things about our consciousnesses, regardless of the time period. I think this is due in large part to emotion, and it's essential unchanging throughout the existence of humanity in it's current state. This is why mythology has been carried on for so long and has been studied and felt equally throughout time; it is also how things such as art, music, drama, and even math and other things have been alive since the dawn of humanity, and even though they are different, they are still human and are felt in a very similar way to how they have always been felt. Sure, we are different now; we have different lifestyles, different technology, longer live, different influences; but we are still human, with human minds, human emotions and human experiences. And as long as this remains true, we will all share a universal human soul that is similar to all. :)

[TruthSeeker]

This is becomes obvious when you put it this way:

Our belief of the world is shaped by the world we live in.


It's really that simple. Of course, everyone experience the world in a different way. There are still pigmeys living in some forest of Africa, and they don't know not even what a TV or telephone is. They have a very different view of the world that we have.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

so while man has to recact and think about the world he lives in, the wayhe does so is up too him? Prehapes this is how human knowlege advances through time.

[David Quinn]

If you hone your reasoning skills and ruthlessly challenge everything, accepting nothing on faith, and doing everything you can to uncover what is timelessly true in life, then you should have no problems in escaping the confines of your era.

It's not easy, but it can be done.

-

[scameter]

I disagree david. If one uses reason, one has faith in the validity of their reason. One cannot think without belief and faith present, unless the doubt the validity of everything.

[David Quinn]

The only thing one has to accept when one reasons is the validity of the principle of A=A, which is beyond doubt. There is nothing else involved. So whenever I reason about a matter I don't have to exercise faith in anything at all.

All logical reasoning essentially boils down to the form of A=A. That is its core principle. And it is impossible to question or challenge the validity of A=A without similtaneously making use of A=A. Thus, A=A is beyond question.

-

[TruthSeeker]

But when we reason, we are usually analize whether A=A pr not. We usually don't know from the start if that is true or not. We don't know if A=B or A=A. If we knew, we woudln't question it in the first place.

Right? ;)

[David Quinn]

When we first hear about A=A and its underlying role in logic, we would naturally question it to see if it was truly valid or not. And then, when we see that it cannot be questioned at all, we would know for sure that it was valid. End of story.

Once we see this point, we don't have to keep analyzing it. The issue is resolved.

-

[TruthSeeker]

So? If you clearly know that A=A, then why do you even question it in the first place? It is only in a situation when you are comparing two things that are perceived as different that you have a problem to solve.

[David Quinn]

If I didn't question A=A in the first place, I wouldn't be certain now that A=A is beyond question, and I wouldn't be certain about the validity of logic to uncover truth.

As I mentioned earlier, questioning everything is a critical part of rising above one's culture and becoming independent and wise.

-

[scameter]

The only thing one has to accept when one reasons is the validity of the principle of A=A, which is beyond doubt. There is nothing else involved. So whenever I reason about a matter I don't have to exercise faith in anything at all.

I disagree. For one, A respresents something, and that thing is doubtable; but, even without this obvious thing, the A symbol conceptually is doubtable, as well as the equation A=A. Everything is doubtable.

[David Quinn]

You can only doubt A=A if you don't understand it. As soon as you understand A=A, and you would be surprised just few people in this world do, you automatically perceive as a matter of course that is beyond all doubt.

The reason for this is that any attempt to question the validity of A=A will necessarily make use of A=A. In other words, to question it rationally is to use logic, and to use logic is to affirm the validity of logic (and by implication, A=A). So in the very attempt to negate A=A, one immediately makes use of it and confirms it.

It is similar to the attempt to question whether one is conscious and having experiences. We cannot even begin to make such an attempt without utilizing consciousness and experiences, and so the whole thing is undermined from the start.

As for your other point, the fact that "A represents something" doesn't necessarily have to generate doubt. For example, whenever I philosophize I can restrict myself to *definitions*, as opposed to assumptions or articles of faith, that I have created for myself. If I am in complete control of this definition-creating process - and any thinker worth his salt has no problems doing this - then I can eliminate all uncertainty and doubt from this aspect of the process as well.

For example, I might define Nature to be the totality of all there is, and from this I can reason that no particular thing (i.e. no finite phenomena) can constitute the whole of Nature. So here we have a perfectly certain conclusion which resulted from the certainty of both the definition and the logical deduction. All possibility of doubt and uncertainty vanishes.

-

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: I disagree. For one, A respresents something, and that thing is doubtable; but, even without this obvious thing, the A symbol conceptually is doubtable, as well as the equation A=A. Everything is doubtable.

We have discussed this before. Not everything can be doubted, at least not sanely. A=A cannot be doubted. Show me how you doubt A=A. Do you know what it means?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

You can only doubt A=A if you don't understand it. As soon as you understand A=A, and you would be surprised just few people in this world do, you automatically perceive as a matter of course that is beyond all doubt.

And by understand, you mean believe. Faith is much more flexible than definition or understanding; someone can believe or disbelieve something with or without reason or logic one way or the other. For instance, someone can believe in God even if absolutely no evidence of God has ever been produced, but someone who is going by logic could not think something is logical unless evidence be produced for it's truth. I believe it was Pascal that said this is why logic is insufficient to knowing God, because it is too restricted. Faith goes beyond logic, and thus reality as well, and so is more capable of contact with the divine.

As for your other point, the fact that "A represents something" doesn't necessarily have to generate doubt. For example, whenever I philosophize I can restrict myself to *definitions*, as opposed to assumptions or articles of faith, that I have created for myself. If I am in complete control of this definition-creating process - and any thinker worth his salt has no problems doing this - then I can eliminate all uncertainty and doubt from this aspect of the process as well.

Of course you can! Because you are engineering it yourself. The reason A=A is because you think it does, for whatever reason is irrelevant. If you restrict your philosophizing to definitions, then of course some things are definitely true and others untrue, because your view is restricted, limited. If one relies on belief, anything is possible because anything can be believed in.

We have discussed this before. Not everything can be doubted, at least not sanely. A=A cannot be doubted. Show me how you doubt A=A. Do you know what it means?

Essentially, A=A because A is A and each unit in the equation is the same thing; something can only be what it is. How could A be B if B is not the exact same as A? But, it is still doubtable, even using reason; what if A is not A? Then A wouldn't necessarily equal A. What if A is deceptive, and is something else but is posing as A? What if logic is not truthful? And, it is also doubtable without using reason and much more easily, because to doubt without reasons means to say what is true depends on belief, which I think it does, and thus anything could be true, and so to say something is definitely true based on anything is wrong. And that is not relativism; that is acting on how things are seen. Well, even if it is relativistic in a sense I'm fine with that, even though I dislike relativism when it is applied universally.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: What if A is deceptive, and is something else but is posing as A? What if logic is not truthful?

A is deceptive? Logic is not truthful? These statements don't even make sense. They make about as much sense as the sentence "last friday clocked bird over evening far transistor." Can you give it another try?

Cheers, Thomas

[David Quinn]

scameter wrote:.

DQ: You can only doubt A=A if you don't understand it. As soon as you understand A=A, and you would be surprised just few people in this world do, you automatically perceive as a matter of course that is beyond all doubt.

S: And by understand, you mean believe.

No, I mean understand. There is a world of difference between understanding the core of a matter with utter clarity and that of blindly submitting to a belief.

Have you never experienced being conscious of a core timeless truth with utter clarity?


Faith is much more flexible than definition or understanding; someone can believe or disbelieve something with or without reason or logic one way or the other. For instance, someone can believe in God even if absolutely no evidence of God has ever been produced, but someone who is going by logic could not think something is logical unless evidence be produced for it's truth. I believe it was Pascal that said this is why logic is insufficient to knowing God, because it is too restricted. Faith goes beyond logic, and thus reality as well, and so is more capable of contact with the divine.

Faith and belief might be more flexible than logic and understanding, but there is one thing they cannot do and that is uncover truth. A frayed cotton thread, in which the strands are splayed out in all directions, on the surface can seem more interesting and useful than a pointed thread. But whatever else it can do, a frayed thread can never pierce the eye of a needle.

Pascal was wrong when he said that logic is insufficent to knowing God (or Truth). On the contrary, logic is the only means possible of knowing God. God can only be found when all delusions has been eliminated from the mind, and eliminating delusion is primarily a logical process.


DQ: As for your other point, the fact that "A represents something" doesn't necessarily have to generate doubt. For example, whenever I philosophize I can restrict myself to *definitions*, as opposed to assumptions or articles of faith, that I have created for myself. If I am in complete control of this definition-creating process - and any thinker worth his salt has no problems doing this - then I can eliminate all uncertainty and doubt from this aspect of the process as well.

S: Of course you can! Because you are engineering it yourself.

Exactly.


The reason A=A is because you think it does, for whatever reason is irrelevant.

No, the reason is all-important. If it is intrinsically impossible to question A=A without automatically confirming it at the same time, then this is extremely significant. It literally means that A=A is beyond question. It is something which is 100% certain and true. Whether or not I recognize this to be so is irrelevent. It is something which will always be true, regardless of what people think or believe.

It is the fashion these days to believe that everything is uncertain. This is what our postmodernist culture teaches. But we shouldn't gullibly accept everything that we have been taught.


If you restrict your philosophizing to definitions, then of course some things are definitely true and others untrue, because your view is restricted, limited. If one relies on belief, anything is possible because anything can be believed in.

You mean, like blowing people up on planes because one can believe in a Muslim Paradise in the sky? There are consquences to rejecting reason and believing in anything you want. Horrible consequences, mainly.

In my experience, there is nothing restrictive about creating definitions and using them to uncover truth if one has enough imagination, wisdom and insight. Definitions are only restrictive to the degree that one's mind is dominated by fears and mental blocks.


Essentially, A=A because A is A and each unit in the equation is the same thing; something can only be what it is. How could A be B if B is not the exact same as A? But, it is still doubtable, even using reason; what if A is not A?

This can never happen, by definition. The two A's on each side of the equation are literally defined to be the same thing.

You should think of A=A as a more fleshed-out version of plain old A. It means exactly the same thing as A. Only its form is different.

Again, if you think it is possible that A could somehow not equal A, then it means that you are not understanding A=A properly.


What if logic is not truthful? And, it is also doubtable without using reason and much more easily, because to doubt without reasons means to say what is true depends on belief, which I think it does, and thus anything could be true, and so to say something is definitely true based on anything is wrong.

Sure, we can doubt anything we want if we abandon reason, but what does it mean? Sweet FA. If a doubt is irrational and incoherent to begin with, then it is meaningless. It lacks the power to seriously challenge anything.

For example, it is possible for a person to reject all reason and doubt that he is conscious and having experiences, but the irrationality of this doubt makes it meaningless. Indeed, the only way he could continue doubting it is by constantly blocking out that fact that the doubt itself is an experience. He has to actively diminish his own mind and refuse to recognize the identity of his own doubt.

So in this instance, the doubting is a result of his mind being restricted and diminished. He is having to erect mental blocks in order to maintain the belief that everything is certain. So it is not really true what you said earlier that adhering to logic restricts the mind. Quite the opposite, in fact. Logic dissolves the mind of all of its mental blocks and frees it.

-

[scameter]

A is deceptive? Logic is not truthful? These statements don't even make sense.

Of course not to logic. How can "logic is not truthful" make sense to logic? If you will read what I said about the difference between faith and logic perhaps that will help you to see what I meant.

Have you never experienced being conscious of a core timeless truth with utter clarity?

Nope. Have you understood something without believing it in or it's validity?

Faith and belief might be more flexible than logic and understanding, but there is one thing they cannot do and that is uncover truth.

Of course not, because to you, truth is logical.

Pascal was wrong when he said that logic is insufficent to knowing God (or Truth). On the contrary, logic is the only means possible of knowing God. God can only be found when all delusions has been eliminated from the mind, and eliminating delusion is primarily a logical process.

How odd. Pascal was a Catholic (as far as I know) and his belief is contrary to theirs, and your belief is very Catholic.

Exactly.

Then it is not absolute truth. It is your truth, relative truth.

No, the reason is all-important.

Actually it is unimportant entirely. You think A=A is true. *You* think A=A is true. Even if other people do, it is still you thinking it is true. The reason you do is still only one more relative thing to you.

It is the fashion these days to believe that everything is uncertain. This is what our postmodernist culture teaches. But we shouldn't gullibly accept everything that we have been taught.

Odd. That has nothing to do with me being skeptical, nor have I ever been taught that everything is uncertain. :P

You mean, like blowing people up on planes because one can believe in a Muslim Paradise in the sky? There are consquences to rejecting reason and believing in anything you want. Horrible consequences, mainly.

Definitely. I never said philosophy is practical.

Logic dissolves the mind of all of its mental blocks and frees it.

To the confines of it's self.

i know the usual phrase is 'i think therefore i am' but doubting is a special type of thinking that requires significant depth and awareness

As long as you're doubting logically. Philosophy has become limited to philosophy, and not to questioning and wonder; existentialism has been reduced to logic, math and science, and metaphysics is cosmology and astrophysics. The dynamics of the mind are the dynamics of a mathematical formula in neurology, and the meaning of the body is defined by the meaning of fruity terms backed up by more math.

[David Quinn]

scameter,

Why is it that you can't be bothered formatting your posts properly and make them more reader-friendly? You don't think that is being disrespectful to everyone here?


DQ: Faith and belief might be more flexible than logic and understanding, but there is one thing they cannot do and that is uncover truth.

S: Of course not, because to you, truth is logical.

And to you as well, but you are in denial of it. I don't think you realize that every aspect of your discourse is fully informed by logic and the principle of A=A, and could never be otherwise.

For example, when you imply above that, to you, truth is beyond logic, you are *identifying* what is truth for you and you are *logically distinguishing* it from what I think truth is.

This is why it is difficult to take your words seriously, as there is an underlying duplicity in everything that you say concerning this issue. You are repeatedly utilizing logic and A=A in every point you make, while, at the same time, trying to pretend otherwise.

You need to open up your mind up to the fact that it is impossible for the mind to escape logic/A=A and still remain conscious.


DQ: As for your other point, the fact that "A represents something" doesn't necessarily have to generate doubt. For example, whenever I philosophize I can restrict myself to *definitions*, as opposed to assumptions or articles of faith, that I have created for myself. If I am in complete control of this definition-creating process - and any thinker worth his salt has no problems doing this - then I can eliminate all uncertainty and doubt from this aspect of the process as well.

S: Of course you can! Because you are engineering it yourself.

DQ: Exactly.

S: Then it is not absolute truth. It is your truth, relative truth.

It is indeed absolute truth. You are confusing conclusions with definitions here. A conclusion can be absolutely true, even though it is built upon subjectively-created definitions.

For example, humans have subjectvely created definitions for "1", "2", "+", "and =", yet the fact remains that 1+1=2 is absolutely true. It is absolutely true in the sense that it can never be falsified in any possible world.


DQ: No, the reason is all-important.

S: Actually it is unimportant entirely. You think A=A is true. *You* think A=A is true. Even if other people do, it is still you thinking it is true. The reason you do is still only one more relative thing to you.

It doesn't matter if *I* am the one who thinks it or not. A genuine truth is always true for all people, in all situations, regardless of who thinks it.

For example, the truth that experiences are happening (or to put it another way, that Nature/existence is not nothing whatsoever) is necessarily true for all people in all situations. It cannot be doubted by anyone. Therefore, it qualifies as being absolutely true.


DQ: It is the fashion these days to believe that everything is uncertain. This is what our postmodernist culture teaches. But we shouldn't gullibly accept everything that we have been taught.

S: Odd. That has nothing to do with me being skeptical, nor have I ever been taught that everything is uncertain.

Postmodernism has saturated society to such an extent that you would have, at the very least, picked it up by osmosis. That is why your views hardly raise a ripple in today's society. They are merely echoing what is already there.


DQ: You mean, like blowing people up on planes because one can believe in a Muslim Paradise in the sky? There are consquences to rejecting reason and believing in anything you want. Horrible consequences, mainly.

S: Definitely. I never said philosophy is practical.

Well, it's obviously very practical. For example, if a Muslim terrorist ever decided to take logic and truth seriously, he would very quickly give up the idea of blowing people up for the sake of insane causes, such as Muslim imperialism.


DQ: Logic dissolves the mind of all of its mental blocks and frees it.

S: To the confines of it's self.

Not at all. In the hands of a wise person, logic destroys all conceptual prisons and then, once that has been achieved, falls away by itself, leaving only the boundlessness of Reality behind.

The irony is, your own mind is currently trapped by a limited perception of what logic can and cannot do.

-

[scameter]

what about doubting intuitively?

I like it.

Why is it that you can't be bothered formatting your posts properly and make them more reader-friendly? You don't think that is being disrespectful to everyone here?

It must not be too horrible. People still read and respond to my posts, and I'm not banned. :)

And to you as well, but you are in denial of it. I don't think you realize that every aspect of your discourse is fully informed by logic and the principle of A=A, and could never be otherwise.

True, I don't, because that is not true. You, as with most extreme supporters of logic, forget the huge human mental construct called emotion, that affects everything thought we have. The very reason we invented science and math and every other human-created thing is out of emotion, because we enjoy doing it and think it is important.

For example, when you imply above that, to you, truth is beyond logic, you are *identifying* what is truth for you and you are *logically distinguishing* it from what I think truth is.

I don't think my version of truth is logical, mainly because I don't have a version of truth. To me, truth is entire and not only logic; logic is too small and human and specific to be the entirety of truth.

You need to open up your mind up to the fact that it is impossible for the mind to escape logic/A=A and still remain conscious.

And you need to open your mind to the possiblity that (oh heaven forbid) what you think may not be all there is, and what the human mind uses to think may not be all that affects thought, or that is truth.

It is indeed absolute truth. You are confusing conclusions with definitions here. A conclusion can be absolutely true, even though it is built upon subjectively-created definitions.

Of course, because it makes sense to you, and if something makes sense to you it is absolutely true. To me that is utter arrogance, but it is something many people have.

For example, the truth that experiences are happening (or to put it another way, that Nature/existence is not nothing whatsoever) is necessarily true for all people in all situations. It cannot be doubted by anyone. Therefore, it qualifies as being absolutely true.

I doubt it, mainly because I don't think we are definitely capable of knowing everything.

Well, it's obviously very practical. For example, if a Muslim terrorist ever decided to take logic and truth seriously, he would very quickly give up the idea of blowing people up for the sake of insane causes, such as Muslim imperialism.

Oh? A Muslim has logic. A Muslim who blows up people has a very good reason for doing it, one they think is absolutely true and logical.

Not at all. In the hands of a wise person, logic destroys all conceptual prisons and then, once that has been achieved, falls away by itself, leaving only the boundlessness of Reality behind.

Then what? Tell me something: if what you say is true, and logic is all-powerful and capable of bursting all boundaries in our minds and making us entirely open to the entirety of reality and absolute truth, then what? What do we do once logic is allowed to fully control our minds, even though that is impossible?

[David Quinn]

scameter wrote:

DQ: Why is it that you can't be bothered formatting your posts properly and make them more reader-friendly? You don't think that is being disrespectful to everyone here?

S: It must not be too horrible. People still read and respond to my posts, and I'm not banned.

That is not the point. You are writing to a public forum and so you have a responsibility to make your posts readable. The people you are conversing with are only able to respond to you because they can remember what they wrote and thus can distinguish their words from yours. But how do you expect everyone else to do that? You are showing everyone here a great deal of contempt.

You are also taking advantage of Thomas's gentleness amd reluctance to ban people. He is being far too kind to you.

But hey, you reject reason, you can do whatever you want. You are above it all.


DQ: And to you as well, but you are in denial of it. I don't think you realize that every aspect of your discourse is fully informed by logic and the principle of A=A, and could never be otherwise.

S: True, I don't, because that is not true. You, as with most extreme supporters of logic, forget the huge human mental construct called emotion, that affects everything thought we have. The very reason we invented science and math and every other human-created thing is out of emotion, because we enjoy doing it and think it is important.

Again, every aspect of this paragraph of yours is fully shaped by logic and A=A. It's a poor quality logic, to be sure, but it's still a form of logic nonetheless.

For example, you are saying that logic cannot be truly valid and objective because it is always distorted by emotion. This is your attempt to reach a logical conclusion, one that is 100% valid and objective. But because you have a large mental block about these issues and because you are firmly attached to the idea that everything is uncertain, you cannot bring yourself to see it.

As for your point, emotion can certainly drive us to engage in logical reasoning, but this doesn't mean that we cannot reach logical conclusions that are 100% objective and valid. For example, we can reason that science will always be limited in its ability to describe the Universe (because our technology and senses will always be limited) , or that it will never be able to uncover absolute truth (because empirical evidence is always limited and uncertain). Both of these conclusions, logically reached, are 100% true and valid.


DQ: For example, when you imply above that, to you, truth is beyond logic, you are *identifying* what is truth for you and you are *logically distinguishing* it from what I think truth is.

S: I don't think my version of truth is logical, mainly because I don't have a version of truth. To me, truth is entire and not only logic; logic is too small and human and specific to be the entirety of truth.

If you don't have a version of truth, then why do you state in your very next breath that "truth is entire" and that logic is "too small" for it? You either have a version of truth or you don't. Which is it to be?

And again, just to labour the point, you are once more *identifying* what is truth for you (even if it's nothing more than simply rejecting the idea that truth is logical) and *logically distinguishing* it from what I think truth is. That is to say, you are fully utilizing logic and A=A in every aspect of your statements here (but again, in a poor manner) .


DQ: It is indeed absolute truth. You are confusing conclusions with definitions here. A conclusion can be absolutely true, even though it is built upon subjectively-created definitions.

S: Of course, because it makes sense to you, and if something makes sense to you it is absolutely true. To me that is utter arrogance, but it is something many people have.

Aren't you doing the same thing? Aren't you rejecting logic because it "makes sense" to you to do this and because it fits in with your conception of what is absolutely true?

Of course you are.

In any case, I only consider something to be "absolutely true" if it is logically impossible to dispute it. Simply "making sense" isn't good enough.


DQ: For example, the truth that experiences are happening (or to put it another way, that Nature/existence is not nothing whatsoever) is necessarily true for all people in all situations. It cannot be doubted by anyone. Therefore, it qualifies as being absolutely true.

S: I doubt it, mainly because I don't think we are definitely capable of knowing everything.

I don't think you are paying careful enough attention here. Look at it more closely. Are you seriously entertaining the possibility that there are no experiences happening at all, despite the fact you are currently reading words on a computer screen, and that Nature/existence is nothing whatsoever?

Is your attachment to the view that "everything is uncertain" so strong that it won't even allow you to acknowledge the fact that Nature/existence is not nothing whatsoever?


DQ: Well, it's obviously very practical. For example, if a Muslim terrorist ever decided to take logic and truth seriously, he would very quickly give up the idea of blowing people up for the sake of insane causes, such as Muslim imperialism.

S: Oh? A Muslim has logic. A Muslim who blows up people has a very good reason for doing it, one they think is absolutely true and logical.

The average Muslim is governed by many unchallenged beliefs which lack any rational foundation and thus by no stretch of the imagination can he called logical or truthful. Indeed, if a Muslim ever began to seriouly question his beliefs in the spirit of logic and truth, he would be ex-communicated in no time, possibly even executed.

Again, your mind is imprisoned by a very limited conception of what it means to logical. It is quite astounding just how limited it is.

But you're not unique. Apart from the Christian fundies, you're essentially no different from most American kids.


DQ: Not at all. In the hands of a wise person, logic destroys all conceptual prisons and then, once that has been achieved, falls away by itself, leaving only the boundlessness of Reality behind.

S: Then what? Tell me something: if what you say is true, and logic is all-powerful and capable of bursting all boundaries in our minds and making us entirely open to the entirety of reality and absolute truth, then what? What do we do once logic is allowed to fully control our minds, even though that is impossible?

Solve practical problems, improve lifestyle, build spaceships, explore the Universe, teach our children how to be rational, enjoy Nature.

-

[David Quinn]

psyche,

could it be david that you are by nature logical it is your modus operandi so to speak in which you excel and you have gotten the result you 'desired' which is all well and good

but there are other natures such as the poet/artist with a different modus operandi that also brings the desired result and that is well and good also

Yes, they have a different modus operandi, but that is essentially because they have different aims.

Poetry and art is very limited when it comes to either philosophically understanding the nature of Reality and becoming spiritually enlightened, or expressing this enlightened understanding.

While a good poet or artist can excel in depicting certain kinds of social and psychological realities, and even certain kinds of mystical states, he is limited in his ability to express the deepest truths of life. For that he would have to turn to prose or verbal discourse.

Once on Genius Forum (http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/index.php), we organized a thread in which only paintings were to be used to discuss the question of free will. No text was allowed to be used at all. Needless to say, very little dialectical progress occured and nothing was really accomplished. Some paintings were able to vaguely suggest some slant on the issue, depending on how you looked at them, but that was about it.

Nothing beats plain, direct speech when it comes to philosophy. As Jerry Seinfeld once remarked about opera, "If you've got something to say, just say it!"


it is like saying marriage and children are the 'natural' state for people and those who revel in their solitude are somewhat less or deviant

No, it is more like saying that if a person wants to win an Olympic gold medal in the marathon, then sitting around on the couch all day eating chips and watching television is just as good a modus operandi as getting fit and developing one's endurance skills.


i know you believe that intelligence and logic are the only way to know god or attain enlightenment

yet some of the greatest spiritual masters were poets the rig veda is a book dominated by hymns

Are they really poems? Or are they spiritual discourses in the manner of the Tao Te Ching and the like? There is a big difference.

What's an example?


my ex bf's father was president of the university of miami which naturally covered all of the arts and all of the sciences is a major teaching hospital law athletics etc.

but when he retired he was asked what has your illustrious career taught you

'we need more humanities'

why do you think he would say that

It could be for any reason. For example:

- That people nowadays are ignorant of literature and history.

- That an attachment to the humanities is an anti-dote to the crude violence in the world.

- That the humanities can broaden the mind.

And so on. You would have to tell me why he said it.

I personally think we need more truthful thinking. But that's just me.

-

[David Quinn]

psyche,

you use as your authority figure jerry senifeld

this is a fictional character

and the person playing this fictional character is a comedian

so these are products of artists yet you use them to provide philosophical clarity

I tend to rate comedians far more highly than poets or artists. A good comedian can expose much of the bullshit in the world, and so he provides an important service to the community.

On the other hand, most modern comedy is limited because it chains itself to the ordinary worldly mentality that dominates our society. Very rarely does it raise itself into the philosophic realm and begin to highlight great truths. But I suppose that is really a job for the philosopher.

A philosopher is a strange comedian whom no one finds funny.


also in my school it was the arts and philosophy department

columbia university gives credit to philosophy as a science

at oxford university it is linked with the theology department

This doesn't really mean anything. Academic philosophy has become a laughing stock the world over. It's treated as a joke by everyone, not just by those who think and value truth. It has long ago divorced itself from serious philosophy.


and as far as prose that is also used in the arts

narrative fiction and plays

Yes, prose can be used for many different purposes.


and there is no such thing as plain direct speech because words are symbols and carry with them different meanings for each person

That's true, but there is enough overlap in our mentalities that we can communciate with each other effectively enough. A good teacher can read the psychology of those he teaches and can tailor his speech accordingly.

What I mean by "plain, direct speech" is speech that doesn't prevaricate, or introduce ambiguities, or go off on unnecessary tangents, or have secondary artistic aims, or try to be too floweryand clever.


as we discussed desire

one has to desire enlightenment with all one's being you say

i say one has to let go of all attachments to everything including the attachment to enlightenment in order to attain enlightenment

It's not possible to let go of all attachments if you don't know what these attachment are to begin with, and you can't know what all of your attachments are until you are able to plumb the very depths of your mind and open yourself up to the nature of Reality (i.e. become enlightened). Most attachments are hidden deep within the mind and concealed by mental blocks. This is why it is extremely important that people to do everything they can to attain enlightenment. Nothing of any note can be accomplished without it.

If you simply try to let go of all attachments at once, including enlightenment, then you'll only be partly successful at best. You will perhaps be free of the cruder, more obvious attachments, but you will still be controlled by the subtler, deeper ones.


you say desire brings enlightenment

Main Entry: 1de·sire
Pronunciation: di-'zI(-&)r, dE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·sired; de·sir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French desirer, from Latin desiderare, from de- + sider-, sidus heavenly body
transitive verb
1 : to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for <desire success>
2 a : to express a wish for : REQUEST <they desire an immediate answer> b archaic : to express a wish to : ASK
3 obsolete : INVITE
4 archaic : to feel the loss of
intransitive verb : to have or feel desire
synonyms DESIRE, WISH, WANT, CRAVE, COVET mean to have a longing for. DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim <desires to start a new life>. WISH sometimes implies a general or transient longing especially for the unattainable <wishes for permanent world peace>. WANT specifically suggests a felt need or lack <wants to have a family>. CRAVE stresses the force of physical appetite or emotional need <craves sweets>. COVET implies strong envious desire <covets his rise to fame>.

which one of these definitions of desire is the one you mean i see a number of contrary definitions surely covet or crave won't work as enlightenment is the cessation of craving is it not longing or hoping is not powerful enough

so to me desire and enlightenment are contradictory

I agree that desire and enlightenment are contradictory. However, desire and the process of attaining enlightenment isn't. Climbing and sitting on top of Mt Everest are contradictory, but climbing and ascending Mt Everest isn't.

Desire can really only disappear when one perceives the illusory nature of all things, and this perception can really only arise when one craves the truth with all of one's being.

-

[scameter]

But hey, you reject reason, you can do whatever you want. You are above it all.

Why thank you. :)

Again, every aspect of this paragraph of yours is fully shaped by logic and A=A. It's a poor quality logic, to be sure, but it's still a form of logic nonetheless.

And every single thing that you do and say is perfect logic and only logic, including continuing to try and force me into believing what you say, continuously, even though I never will because I do not agree with your opinion.

For example, you are saying that logic cannot be truly valid and objective because it is always distorted by emotion. This is your attempt to reach a logical conclusion, one that is 100% valid and objective. But because you have a large mental block about these issues and because you are firmly attached to the idea that everything is uncertain, you cannot bring yourself to see it.

I could not be trying to reach a logical conclusion by what I say because if I believe what I say, there is no way that any ultimate conclusion I could come to would be from the goal of logic, because to me, absolute logic does not exist because it is inevitably affected by emotion. To me, objectivity has nothing to do with logic because logic is subjective and affected by emotion.

As for your point, emotion can certainly drive us to engage in logical reasoning, but this doesn't mean that we cannot reach logical conclusions that are 100% objective and valid.

Oh I disagree, mainly because of the reason we would care about coming to logical and objective conclusions, namely emotion. We enjoy it, and that is why we do it. Logically, it makes no sense to come to any conclusion, have any goals or do anything, even live, because none of it, logically and objectively, means anything. So, if you truly wish to be logical and objective, do nothing, ever.

If you don't have a version of truth, then why do you state in your very next breath that "truth is entire" and that logic is "too small" for it? You either have a version of truth or you don't. Which is it to be?

Logicians really have no concept of mystery do they? I said that truth is entire and that logic is too small for it because truth is much more than anything we know or think; but, this is not my view of truth because to have a view of it would mean that I know at least a portion of it, which I do not. Truth is mysterious, mystical and beyond our subjectivity, and yet a logician could never understand this because their view is too narrow and arrogant to only their logic and human concepts.

Aren't you doing the same thing? Aren't you rejecting logic because it "makes sense" to you to do this and because it fits in with your conception of what is absolutely true?

No. I am rejecting logic because I am capable of recognizing that logic is apart of the human mind, and thus subjective in it's humanity. Sure, if logic wasn't apart of the human mind I would say it is objective, if not truthful, but it is not because it is apart of the human mind. And, furthermore, as I said above, I have no conception of what is absolutely true because I have no idea or experience of truth.

Are you seriously entertaining the possibility that there are no experiences happening at all, despite the fact you are currently reading words on a computer screen, and that Nature/existence is nothing whatsoever?

Again your vision is narrow. No, I am entertaining the possibility that we aren't perfect (*gasp*), and that our minds could quite possibly be under an illusion, such as in Buddhism, and an infinity of other possibilities. It is not certain that we exist, much less that we know or are capable of knowing anything. This is why I do not assume. Sure, it's impractical, but I'm talking in a philosophy division of a "big view" website, not in the science division.

But you're not unique. Apart from the Christian fundies, you're essentially no different from most American kids.

And you're no different than every other narrow-minded, arrogant, capitalistic, science-loving, blind, idiotic fool human in Western society.

Solve practical problems, improve lifestyle, build spaceships, explore the Universe, teach our children how to be rational, enjoy Nature.

And none of that is logical. It is all emotional. And then, after thinking we are perfect because of our logic, and after satisfying our emotion, we still die like everything else to ever live.

could it be david that you are by nature logical it is your modus operandi so to speak in which you excel and you have gotten the result you 'desired' which is all well and good

What is mine? Stupidity?

[David Quinn]

Scameter wrote:

DQ: Are you seriously entertaining the possibility that there are no experiences happening at all, despite the fact you are currently reading words on a computer screen, and that Nature/existence is nothing whatsoever?

S: Again your vision is narrow. No, I am entertaining the possibility that we aren't perfect (*gasp*), and that our minds could quite possibly be under an illusion, such as in Buddhism, and an infinity of other possibilities.

Even if our minds are under an illusion, it would still constitute an experience and thus prove (once again) that Nature/existence is not nothing whatsoever. The same with any other possibility you care to mention. It is one of those facts which, by its very nature, cannot be undermined by any possibility at all.

In any case, there is not much point in proceeding with the discussion any further, so I'll leave it there. Thanks for your input.

In fact, I've decided this will be my last post to this forum. If anyone wants to continue having discussions with me, you are welcome to come over to Genius Forum and we can do it there.

Bye for now,

David

[scameter]

To psyche: I'm not a dear boy my friend. I am hard on myself because I deserve it; I'm selfish, ignorant and lazy, among other things, and I deserve anything I can give onto myself, and whatever others give me. The reason I enjoy philosophy, history, the other academics and other such inclusive things is because they are inclusive. I can be good at them and have no connection to my self, none of my problems or idiocies or flaws. I can just have my views based on my mind, which I consider to be at least somewhat intelligent, and I can express them amongst other people and actually have respect for the product of my mind instead of myself as bare as it is.

Even if our minds are under an illusion, it would still constitute an experience and thus prove (once again) that Nature/existence is not nothing whatsoever. The same with any other possibility you care to mention. It is one of those facts which, by its very nature, cannot be undermined by any possibility at all.

I agree. The illusion thing was just a mere example, and not a very good one at that. I am definitely not capable of saying what our minds might be, where we are (or not), and what is real and what isn't. And, this is true of everyone; and this is indeed why I do not claim to know anything, and why I also claim that nothing is certain, because it isn't. We are subjective, we are human and we are what we are and cannot escape that, by any means including spirituality or religion or science or logic or math or absolutely anything I don't care what anyone says. And so I could not be honest and true with myself if I thought anything is certain, philosophically. Of course this view is not practical; it could never fly with things such as history or science, for example. But, to me, that is the beauty of philosophy: even though it can be, it is not required to be practical. It is thinking, questioning, wondering, using our reason and our imagination and our minds fundamentally, and this is why I love it. I can finally be impractical and not feel like my impracticality is just another failure and flaw in me. :P

In fact, I've decided this will be my last post to this forum. If anyone wants to continue having discussions with me, you are welcome to come over to Genius Forum and we can do it there.

I'm glad I've left a bad taste in your mouth. My different and unusual, however honest, views often do that to people set in their logic and certainty and beliefs, whatever they may be.

[David Quinn]

You haven't left a bad taste in my mouth. I'm simply stopping this conversation because you make it plain that you have no interest in understanding anything or gaining any kind of knowledge at all. You prefer to hide away in the realm of speculation and hypothesies where it is safe and warm. Given this, I might as well have a conversation with a brick wall.

You should also know that your views are by no means unique. I encounter them everyday. You are expressing the standard postmodernist dogma that currently permeates our society. It is clear that you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

A good thinker is able to distinguish between what is certain in life and what is uncertain. He doesn't block out what is certain simply because he fears losing what is uncertain. He embraces both. At the moment, you are diving dogmatically into one half of the equation and refusing to recognize the other. Perhaps when you get older you will start to see the limitations of this.

Still, I hold no grudges towards you. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck.

And yes, this really will be my last post!

-

[CSwriter1]

I have had a thought that really scares me.

History and socitey infulence thought and the subjective. A man in the 21th century can't think like a man in acient Rome. Too much has happened, culture has changed. This would mean our thoughts are slaves to our own time and circumstance.

"The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." --Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1.

if this is all true, then the mind is not free to be what it wants to be. This is really frightening to me.

--------------------
When you look at the world with reason you get the truth. The truth is:
"Truth is Subjectivity"- Søren Kierkegaard


It is true, our thoughts are slaves to our own time and circumstances, but with awareness of this, we can
expand our minds, and the the more we expand our minds, the less it is true. The Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. When we choose not to be a slave to our own time and circumstances, we travel or open a book, expanding our consciousness and freeing ourselves.

[TruthSeeker]

so i guess what david is saying is that the Y chromosome is the necessary ingredient to genius/certainty/enlightenment (smurf will like this)
Where's the proof for that?

Women can be geniuses too.

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: of course men and women are equal in their capacity

Not quite. There are statistical differences of certain cognitive abilities. Women excel in verbal and social skills (who would have guessed? :lol: ) and men do better in the spatial and math department. Women also seem to have a slight advantage in short-time memory. The crucial thing to remember is that these differences -although they exist- are very small. Moreover, they are controversial because the measurement of cognitive skills isn't an exact science.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Think what you will David. You have your set views and set opinions and they are absolute, and nothing I could say would mean anything to you.

[venom mama]

you're mind is free dude


it is ok to listen and hear what others have to say


but your will is free
your thoughts are your own

[scameter]

I disagree. Belief is stronger than reason, logic or evidence. :)

[sonrisa]

that be true Scam. People see what they wanna see, hear what they wanna hear, etc....

[scameter]

Right, essentially. :)

[redraven]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. First A=A is an undoubtable logical property. It can't be doubted because Logic is what it is, A=A again. However, when we look at the world in other ways beside the simple existence of a fact, we can't use the A=A property. We would use A-->B. This is phenomenological reasoning.

For example, if my wife has a lump on her foot, then we want to determine what caused it. The lump is the lump, and it has these qualities, no question (A=A), but we want to proceed to B. Melanoma, bumped her foot on a child toy, or something like that. So, while A=A is basic, we wish to proceed further. This isn't an argument against David or Thomas, but an exploration of a further principle.

As we proceed through different brackets of knowledge, we reason differently. My wife thinks I hate her, I don't, I love her dearly, A=A but it's not connecting, so I think outside of logical principles, how can I care for this woman? Who hurt her? What am I doing? Personal and social things.

Meanwhile I would say that these kind of problems do not always respond to pure logic, and if logic makes us free, then I will be free of my wife, which would hurt me a lot. Do you see what I'm saying? The fact that I have a wife says a lot about my social reality, most people don't even bother nowadays, and there are days like today when I can see why. I'm glad she has her own computer.

Just a few thoughts...

[scameter]

That is definitely reason. :)

[redraven]

And reason is not everything scameter, I agree. It's hard to do this without writing an essay. There are many different parts to this. I'll try to do this in a short post.

1. There is more to knowledge than logic and empiricism, at least until logic and empiricism map things that they can't right now.
2. I like to divide knowledge into four camps: the positivist, the phenomenological, the social, and the personal. This is not set in stone, it is a sort of map. It's called a bracket. You look at things four different ways. It's also called a hermenuetic or an optic.
3. My statements about free will are positivist, and within the realm of empricism and logic, perfectly valid.
4. Social and personal reasoning is necessary for life, and should not be omitted, even if at times I omit them from a post.
5. Social and personal reasoning require emotion as well as other types of thinking, and are at times non-rational, if not irrational.

i.e. I had a crush on a woman that would not have been good for me, and tried to win her favor, and when I didn't I was upset. That is irrational, but it is personal reasoning. I wanted company, I liked her.

I think that covers most of it.

[scameter]

That isn't personal reasoning. That is emotion. Personal reasoning may have accompanied it, but it was deeply emotional, as with much of human behavior, something many logicians and even scientists choose to ignore and rather to believe fully in logic, even though none take things to their absolute logical conclusion.

[MidnightSun]

"Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it. " - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Very intresting posts raven, thank you kindly.

[scameter]

And when we discover how it does it, we then can either follow it further, or use it. We usually do the latter, and the former is usually only done to a very limited degree. :)

[MidnightSun]

Indeed.