Unfashionable sense for the cogniscenti, my friend. — 180 Proof

I thought as much! As you said,

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't hear the music. — Wikipedia

Why in God's name can't I hear the music? Any remedies that you might wanna recommend a good friend with this condition?

"Do or do not, there is no try." — 180 Proof

Void is non-orientation (non-asymmetrical). Randomness is incompressibility (non-asymmetrical). Complementary ways of describing the non-asymmetrical (asymmetry-free) state-of-affairs. — 180 Proof

Well, that sounds like fashionable nonsense à la postmodernism to me but good judgment has never been my forte (my strong suit). Care to expand and elaborate? Too many words in your post that seem to have a very technical meaning in some context I'm not familiar with.

That out of the way, did you go through my simple (simplisitic?) argument why the void and the random are essentially the same thing? In a very basic sense, the void is nothing and so no property can be ascribed to it let alone the notion of patternlessness (category mistake) while the random is patternlessness. It's like saying a man (can't have a uterus) = woman who's had a hysterectomy (can have a uterus but it's absent). It gets me thinking about the so-called Mu mind state which has been translated, inter alia, as N/A (not applicable). So, the concept of pattern is N/A to the void (category mistake) but then, for some fascinating but insofar as I'm concerned, unknown reason(s), it's treated as equivalent to the patternless void. I feel like asking a question, "what's the difference between, say, having a condom and not using it and not having a condom at all?" The end result is identical - a baby. Maybe there's something worth looking into here.

2. Paradoxical pity: Y lacks something X has but X wastes that something, whatever it is. For instance, X is a talented singer but Y can't carry a tune in a wheel barrow but...X has no interest in music at all. In this case, Y pities X for X is, in a sense, no different from Y; it's as if X couldn't sing even if faer life depended on it and that's exactly how Y perceives faerself. — TheMadFool

I picked that up from :point: Pity=bad?.

I guess it's a question of equating wasted potential to absent potential. The void is sans potential (can never possess patterns) while the randomless has the potential (can possess patterns) but it's untapped.

No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try. — Yoda

It seems, going by Yoda's philosophy, potential means zip, nada, nothing if it isn't actual. I'm sure there are a number of weltanschauungs that have this principle as a corollary of their axioms. What the heck was Yoda's philosophy? Any ideas?

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. — Galileo Galilei

Comparison (Grammar)

"er" and "est" as in blacker and fastest.

"more" and "less" for a word like "beautiful": more beautiful or less beautiful

So long as comparisons are made and they are made, quantification/numericizjng follows naturally; after all, numbers bring to the table arbitrary levels of precision, something vital to the enterprise of comparison.

What about black holes, gravitational singularities? I hear math breaks down "inside" them. Is this a problem with the scientific theory in question, a call to develop a new branch of math, or is it that black holes are beyond the reach of math? Something to do with infinity?


Then this,

Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. — Albert Einstein

Either Einstein was in the early stages of dementia or he was onto something.

I have short argument that math is everywhere.

Definition of compare: same as (=), greater (>), lesser (<)

1. Either you compare or you don't compare (tautology)
2. If you compare then math is everywhere (see definition of compare above)
3. If you don't compare then math is everywhere (everything is same (=))
4. Math is everywhere or math is everywhere (1, 2, 3 CD)
Ergo,
5. Math is everywhere (4, Taut)

QED

"void" equated with "randomness" — 180 Proof

How do you justify this equivalence? Why is the "void" equated wih "randomness"?

That is actually the standard argument against “race realism” (i.e. the argument that race is a social construct): none of the usual racial categories map onto biological reality, because if they did all Native Americans would be “Asians”, all such “Asians” would be the same race as Caucasians, and there would be a ton of different African races on par with them, or else if you tried to treat all Africans as one race, all humans would belong to that race — Pfhorrest

:up: Noted!

The thing is, even if we made the switch from race as biology to race as s social construct, it doesn't seem to help at all. That race is now to be viewed as a social construct instead of a biological one did nothing, in fact can do nothing, to the simple fact of the matter that I, for instance, can tell the difference between an African, a Caucasian, and a Mongolian.

What do I mean?

Yes, it's true that at some level in biology (biochemistry for example), races can't be distinguished but the truth is race isn't based on biochemistry at all. Race ideology, because its older than the branches of biology that erase racial boundaries, couldn't have been based on false ideas about these various subdisciplines of biology. Au contraire, race was/had to be based on those biological and cultural features that were overt, visible, in an in-your-face kind of way. What exactly are these "features"? Exactly those that help us, any one of us, tell the difference between Africans, Caucasians, and Mongolians. Anyone who claims that fae can't recognize a Caucasian when fae sees one, an African when fae sees one, a Mongolian when fae sees one, is probanly lying.

What I'm trying to get at is better explained with an analogy. Suppose I'm given three objects (three races), a triangle, a circle, and a square. Now, I can clearly see that these three objects are distinct shape-wise, one a triangle, the other a circle, and the third a square. Suppose I develop an ideology based on the shapes of these 3 objects (races/shapes). Now, someone can't come along and tell me my ideology of shapes/races is wrong because all 3 objects are made of plastic. My ideology os shapes/races wasn't based on what the objects were made of but on their shapes.

Likewise, human races are based on certain overt, clearly visible, biological (and cultural) features that people can observe without the help of a lab in some biological research center. To then say races aren't real because a scientist can't tell whether the blood sample in a vial in his lab is Caucasian or African or Mongolian is to miss the point completely. Right? :chin:

That race can then become the basis of an hierarchy of races (racism) is a different story altogether. I'm not fishing so I really don't need to open that can of worms.

God is something beyond logic and pure reason — 3017amen

God moves in a mysterious way — William Cowper

God Moves In A Mysterious Way

This is the ace up the theist's sleeve but comes at a cost. With one simple sentence, "god moves in mysterious ways", the theist disarms the atheist of the one powerful weapon that has proven itself against theism viz. reason.

The atheist however has a good retort, if god is truly "beyond logic and pure reason" as the theist claims then how does the person justify this claim? After all, reason now is off-limits. The theist has apparently shot faerself in the foot.

Not to worry. the theist is not exactly employing logic here. What the theist is really doing is drawing our already overstretched attention to the limits of logic and reason. If worst comes to worst and the theist can't deny that he's using of reason, he can always say, "only to expose the limits of reason." The theist shot himself in the foot but, as luck would have it, missed. That's that!

What is the cost to the theist then? It's that the theist must refrain from making logical arguments that has God in its premises or conclusion. After all, by his own admission, logic/reason is incapable of handling God in any conceivable sense.

Stalemate! Neither player can move...or so we think.

The theist has another ace up his sleeve. :point: The Twilight Of Reason. There's more than one way to skin a cat! Reason's soldier, the atheist is left paralyzed while the theist, employing other pararational (alternatives to reason/logic/rationality) means, rides off into the great unknown, relieved that fae at least can move, a must if fae must find God or whoever the hell is behind all this.

It happens all the time. Ideas have their own life, they hybridize all the time. — Olivier5

You mean to say, we just don't live long enough to notice it. Perhaps such events can be observed at a smaller scale at human-level time (5 - 10 years max) to be noticeable. Richard Dawkins' memes come to mind.

That seems explained by the anthropic principle: we could have evolved only in a world where the laws have been stable for a long time. — litewave

We need to understand one thing before we shoot our mouths off. We're talking about cosmic-level events. Time, to be precise duration, may need to be adapted to the so-called Cosmic Perspective (Neil deGrasse Tyson). You know, like astronomical distances need to be measured in lightyears, astronomical units, parsecs.

A similar effect is observed for time - geological time, aeons, deep time, so on and so forth.

Let's not forget the Hindu idea of Kalpa (aeon) which in the Western world would be Conformal Cyclic Cosmology or some such.

Solomonoff induction seems to show that this is very unlikely. — litewave

So, take a deep breath, strap yourselves in because the so-called laws of nature (the order/ the pattern) could devolve into utter chaos at any time. — TheMadFool

It would depend on how long an orderly phase in the chaos lasts (billions/trillions of years) and where we are, temporally, in the ongoing non-chaotic part of the kalpa.

Some of the church fathers were trained as philosophers, eg St Augustine. So perhaps a bit of both. It is clear to me that monotheism responded to a demand for metaphysical clarity - it could not have been so successful without a certain predisposition to its message among Roman empire citizens (and other folks). — Olivier5

So, a mutual pact then! Both Greek philosophy (at least Aristotle's & Plato's) and Christianity benefited from the relationship betwixt them - Aristotle & Plato gained wide recognition, their influence extending over all of Western civilization while Christianity legitimized itself through the association. My, my, ideas working together symbiotically and synergistically like that at such a grand scale. When will the world witness another such phenomenon?

1. Neither. Order is just a "slower-to-dissipate" aspect-zone of chaos to which observers belong and, therefore, they are interested in enough – have time enough – to map, model and foolosophize about. — 180 Proof

Order is stages/phases in chaos — TheMadFool

Did you click the link, Chaos (Cosmogony)?

Some excerpts for your reading pleasure:

Ramon Llull (1232–1315) wrote a Liber Chaos, in which he identifies Chaos as the primal form or matter created by God. Swiss alchemist Paracelsus (1493–1541) uses chaos synonymously with "classical element" (because the primeval chaos is imagined as a formless congestion of all elements) — Wikipedia

Chaos has been linked with the term abyss / tohu wa-bohu of Genesis 1:2. The term may refer to a state of non-being prior to creation or to a formless state. — Wikipedia

Pherecydes of Syros (fl. 6th century BC) interprets chaos as water, like something formless that can be differentiated — Wikipedia

Take a look at this :point: Tohu wa-bohu (Without form and void). and some extracts from it below:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

— Genesis 1:2, New International Version — Wikipedia

The words tohu and bohu also occur in parallel in Isaiah 34:11, which the King James Version translates with the words "confusion" and "emptiness". — Wikipedia

Chaos (Ancient Greek: χάος, romanized: kháos) refers to the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in the Greek creation myths — Wikipedia

Also relevant, Randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events.

I'm intrigued by two things:

1. Formless (Chaos) sounds very much like Randomness (Patternlessness)

2. The Void is considered an idea equivalent to Formless (Chaos). My best guess is the emptiness of the void becomes a Possibility Space [In probability theory, the sample space (also called sample description space or possibility space) of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment] of infinite possibilities (anything's possible so far as The Void goes). Please note, I'm not claiming that something comes from nothing; all I'm saying is if there's nothing (The Void) then, anything's possible, that's all.

Why?

The Void is nothing and nothing doesn't contradict anything. Nothing is a like a blank page. You can write anything on it! However, after you've written something down, we have to start worrying about contradictions i.e. after nothing becomes something, the possibility space of The Void (Nothing) is drastically reduced from infinite to finite.

Thus, some ancient cosmogony (Greek) seems to consider the original state/ of the universe as chaos/void/formless which basically means the current order of the universe with a stable set of laws of nature could be, as you said,

slower-to-dissipate" aspect-zone of chaos to which observers belong. — 180 Proof

We should be always prepared then for sudden/gradual alterations in the order, a return as it were to the primordial chaos/the formless/the void!

2. "Peace, that glorious moment in time when everyone stops and reloads." ~Thomas Jefferson — 180 Proof

:fire: :clap:

3. Zebras are black(?) — 180 Proof

So they say but following the logic that makes that claim, Caucasians are Africans. :rofl: I think we have a strong case against racism! :smile:

Like everything, there were pros and cons with Christianity. It was more universal, less warmongering than national or city-bound religions like the Greeks' or the Jews', but also (I guess) stifling for creativity. You had to tow the one line of the one god. — Olivier5

Religions, once they become dogmatic, become a pain in the neck - any difference in opinion immediately acquires a good vs evil quality. What could possibly go wrong? I wonder if Greek philosophy (Plato & Aristotle) absorbed Christianity and used the authority the latter commanded for propagation far and wide or was it the other way round, Christianity sold itself as a belief having a lot in common with Plato's and Aristotle's ideas, thus claiming it had the nod of approval of these Greek thinkers, making Christianity more appealing to the populace, including the elite? Both?

Christianity, of course. It changed everything. — Olivier5

:ok:

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." ~F.N. — 180 Proof

:fire: :up:

Order is stages/phases in chaos but not the other way round. Why? In chaos, anything is possible and so, order is possible even if only momentarily. In order, chaos is impossible.

Look at the following random sequence of numbers generated using the software in RANDOM.ORG:

{3, 5, 10, 4, 2, 9, 8, 7, 6, 1}

Despite the fact that the sequence is completely random, we see a pattern (bolded for emphasis) in the sequence which is 9, 8, 7, 6.

The laws of nature are simply patterns in the way matter & energy interact and that they've been as they are now for quite some time (how long I'm not certain. read Hume's problems of induction) may simply mean that we're in a certain phase/stage in what is actually chaos and the stability of the laws of nature we're observing could be nothing more than temporary patterns in chaos. So, take a deep breath, strap yourselves in because the so-called laws of nature (the order/ the pattern) could devolve into utter chaos at any time.

This just popped into my head and seems relevant: We know human history is marked by both peace (laws in effect) and wars (laws suspended) but, interestingly, we can't seem to be able to tell whether wars (laws suspended) interrupt the peace (laws in effect) or peace (laws in effect) interrupts the wars (laws suspended). Are we peaceful creatures (wars disrupting the peace) or are we warlike (peace only to recover our strength to wage more war)? Insofar as the OP's point is concerned, is the universe chaos with periods of order or is the universe order with periods of chaos? Hume might know!

Good question. I believe that after losing Constantinople (the "New Rome") and being overrun by the Turks, the next blow was Western European Enlightenment that eventually made many turn to science instead of philosophy, after which nationalism and "modernity" took over and led the struggle for independence into a new era and new weltanschauung. There are still pockets of authentic Hellenistic philosophy and spirituality, that may one day lead to a national revival. But for the most part it's all down to politics and the corrosive influence of English-based global culture spreading through the news, entertainment, and social media just like everywhere else in the world. — Apollodorus

The Greeks were more than familiar with the the cyclical nature of reality (Kyklos & Anacyclosis) although they seem to have studied it only in a political sense. That their civilization as a whole would also cycle through stages - peak & trough, peak & trough - should've occurred to them a long, long time ago.

I think irrespective of the light of reason, that we are storytelling beings. Now that you prod me a bit, that other way of seeing might relate to the meaning which we invest in the word. Those are not 'reasonable', in the sense that they are disinterested an 'objective'. — Tobias

Awesome! A different side to the issue, one I hadn't thought of. I was focusing on logic, the discipline itself, and lost sight of the bigger picture, rationality/critical thinking. Missed the woods for the tress! That said, in my exchange with 180 Proof and Moliere, the philosophical movement known as irrationalism did come up.

Irrationalism, I suppose, includes our subjective side which, inter alia, manifests as storytelling with each person being the main character in faer own narrative - a story of my life as it were. It's odd, you know, how an individual's journey through life [faer experiences, faer's way of tackling situations/problems, faer's reactions (emotional and otherwise), faer's overall role in the grand scheme of things], though apparently limited by the subjectivity that inheres to it, also provides clues that permit an objective understanding of human nature (hopes, fears, values, etc.) as a whole. In all likelihood that's exactly what we're supposed to steer clear of - stick to a story's main goal, the subjective viewpoint it offers and refuse to take even one more step, fighting the temptation to assume an objective (rational) stance. I guess this can be viewed as suspensiom of rationality to the extent desirable and/or possible. Great!

Summer Solstice is upon us, Fool. Days of reason get shorter from here on, with longer nights to leisurely loiter looking up at other stars. Remember, though, even at night the sun still shines brightly, so bright in fact that by its invisible light we're able to see in the dark, even the dim twinkling of impossibly distant, long dead stars... :fire: — 180 Proof

All I'm willing to say is, rationality may not be the only game in town! To look for and use alternatives to rationality (the pararational) is to be automatically labeled insane/idiotic but I feel this is a knee-jerk reaction - unthinking by its very nature and thus to be questioned and doubted to the fullest extent. Too, insanity/idiocy are relative to the times. To an egyptian in pharaonic times, planes and rockets would be madness/foolishness and yet to people of the 21st century, they're a routine affair. My point? Don't dismiss the pararational out of hand. In fact, it isn't me that's asking for, let's just say, a fairer trial for the pararational in the court of reason; it's reason itself, I acting as its mouthpiece, that's demanding this! Thinking pararationally, if and when possible supposing we're not doing it already, doesn't meaning we swing to the other extreme and completely abandon rationality/reason although I would recommend it if only to test the capabilities of the pararational. What could prove to be of greater value is a joint effort, the rational and the pararational as a complementary pair. We could get the best of both worlds. I'm daydreaming aren't I? :chin:

But would you care to explain what you mean? — Tobias

Reason is a certain way of seeing the world — Tobias

Alludes to "other ways" of seeing the world. I thought you had something specific in mind, that's all.

As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive.

By the way, one of the reasons why Platonism was so successful was that Hellenistic philosophy and culture in general stretched from the Italic peninsula (Magna Graecia) and North Africa all the way to Northwest India and it was very cosmopolitan. Many Platonist philosophers were Romans, Egyptians, Arabs, Jews, Persians, etc., not just Greeks. — Apollodorus

:ok: The other day, I was having a discussion with my niece on how the Greeks were the first philosophers insofar as Western civilization is concerned, Alfred North Whitehead had gone on record that "All of Western Philosophy is little more than a footnote to Plato." That was 2,500 years ago. Fast forward to 2021 and Greece rarely makes the news and when it does, it has nothing to do with intellectual achievements. What happened to the Greeks? Have the Greeks lost their touch or is the Greek genius lying dormant waiting to be rekindled? :chin:

Are you a condescending prick or merely masking your own insecurity? — Tobias

Oops! Apologies if what I said was offensive. I'm fond of metaphors, that's all. I took it too far this time. Won't happen again. Promise!

The pleasure is entirely mine. I wish all "fools" were like you. But, apparently, not. — Apollodorus

Mine too.

But they are rarely skeptical of the "reason" they have replaced it with. — Foghorn

They should be, right? That's the whole point of Skepticism

Skepticism (American and Canadian English) or scepticism (British, Irish, Australian, and New Zealand English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma. — Wikipedia

A skeptic can't be a skeptic if fae has something fae doesn't doubt.

Reason is a certain way of seeing the world — Tobias

You've picked up the scent. Magnifique! So, are you going to follow it or not or are you already on the trail?

Platonism was far more powerful than it is often realized. It was of course heavily sponsored by Alexander and his followers. It was transmitted through Plato’s Academy which functioned from 387 BC to 529 CE and through the so-called Alexandrian School at Alexandria, Egypt, which lasted from 306 BC to 642. Other philosophical circles formed in Rhodes, Syria, and other parts of the Greek-speaking world. In Christian times Platonism was transmitted through the University of Constantinople from 425 CE into the 15th century when the capital city was taken by the Turks. But it also made its way to Italy and so it spread to the whole of the western world (as well as to the Islamic world). But very few people actually know that unless they are into Byzantine studies or related fields. — Apollodorus

Good to know. You know your history well. Always a pleasure to meet someone erudite.

Any system that assumes ideal humans will fail because ideal humans belong to the same category as unicorns, centaurs, fairies, and leprechauns - mythical beings.

You are probably correct in a sense. But the Hellenistic weltanschauung transmitted through Plato and Aristotle survived for many centuries, influenced Alexander, Rome, Christianity, Islam, and the Renaissance, and formed the very foundations of Western civilization. Not a negligible feat it seems. — Apollodorus

The students (philosophers) built their philosophies on the ruins of preexisting philosophies demolished by their teacher (anti-philosopher). So, yeah, Socrates created the vacuum and horror vacui did the rest!

I almost forgot how powerful Plato's and Aristotle's ideas were - they were probably expanded or tweaked to adapt them to regional conceptual paradigms but still remained recongizable as Platonic or Aristotelian.

Socrates calls himself a midwife and a physician of the soul. He acknowledges that both have knowledge. Like the sophists he has knowledge of how to argue using reason and rhetoric, — Fooloso4

From what I can gather from the bits and pieces of information available online, Socrates' was trying to get to the bottom of issues that figured prominently in Athenian society and those that were close to his aging heart - justice, piety, to name two. He seemed to have recognized very early on that without precise definitions, there would be no clear picture of the corresponding questions and trying to find answers would be moot. From snippets of his dialog with his fellow Athenians, one thing is clear - the conversations are largely disagreements on definitions. He never got round to formulating arguments that, instead of demolishing existing ideas/theories by critical analysis of the meaning of words, actually tried to prove a philosophical standpoint on ethics, metaphysics, etc. His signature move was, simply put, refutation and not proof and thus, he would have little to no use for rhetoric - he wasn't trying to convince people that his ideas were right, au contraire, he was refuting theirs.

In this sense, Socrates is a paradoxical figure in philosophy despite being honored as the father of western philosophical traditions because truth be told, ethics, theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, and other branches of philosophy predated him and so, he didn't/couldn't have founded philosophy. Since he was challenging existing ideas in a philosophy that preceded him, he should be more correctly described as an anti-philosopher. He struck the first blow on the Athenian weltanschauung - the rest is history!

Yes, of course, Feyerabend's rebut to Popper. To wit: "Name the greatest of all inventors. Accident." ~Mark Twain — 180 Proof

Then we agree that Fortuna must give us her blessings if we're to make a breakthrough? By the way, I thought,

Necessity is the mother of all inventions. — proverb

Back to the main page, metaphorically speaking, to bring this discussion back on track. You've probably encountered this interesting phenomenon called Wisdom Of The Crowd - its got its own Wikipedia page, assuming Wikipedia is a reliable source - and if you haven't I offer it to you as a curiosity if that's as far as you're willing to run with it but take note that it's highly relevant to the issue of chance in epistemology and the gist of the OP as an exploration of alternatives to reason as ways of gaining knowledge. See vide infra:

The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds — Wikipedia

Note the word "estimation", underlined for emphasis above . I know the classic experiment performed by Galton was quantitative (numerical) estimation/guessing but I'm sure we could extend the effect (wisdom of the crowd) to qualitative questions like, is idealism true or materialism true?, is there a soul or not?, you get the idea. If this doesn't quite match up to your views on the matter, we could always find a way to quantify such questions with the objective being to guess the probability each philosophical position being true/not. The fact that the wisdom of the crowd is, surprisingly, reliable and even deserving of the description accurate despite the fact that it doesn't involve any known logical system is precisely the kind of alternative pathways that bypass the rather rigid and even cumbersome logics I'm proposing we keep an eye out for. Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. :up:

"Mysteries" always beg questions and never answer them. Questions which can only be satisfied by "mysteries" are pseudo. "Faith in mysteries" is a gateway drug. — 180 Proof

Don't be too sure of that, 180 Proof and I don't mean that in a condescending way. You, yourself, once, quoted the following,

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. — Hamlet

Perhaps, I'm misremembering, Mandela effect of some kind, God knows.

Reminds me of the gambler's fallacy. On the ceilings of some old casinos, like angels in a cathedral, they still paint stars. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Thank (y)our lucky stars! :rofl: This is extremely intriguing in a certain sense, don't you agree? Stars as having something to do with luck and I mentioning how it might be necessary for the roll of the die to swing in our favor if we're to ever score (find a star that's been outshone by the sun) as it were, you know, hit a home run, make that discovery every other logician worth faer salt seems to be gunning for?

You do agree, of course, that chance has a major role to play in discoveries big and small, right? :point: List Of Discoveries Influenced By Chance. While my own life has been largely untainted by the vagaries of Fortuna, not that its turned out fabulous; au contraire, it's been, let's just say, a series of "unfortunate" (literally, I kid you not!) events. Mind the inconsistency but let it slide will you? Anyway, what I wanted to ask was, did you never experience chance events in your life? In other words, was every event in your life predictable to a tee? I'm guessing the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second question is "no". I maybe wrong of course but, hey, nobody's perfect, right?

Also, do you mind having a look at the following quote from an English Translation of the Tao Te Ching by Tolbert McCarroll:

Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mysteries. — Tao Te Ching

Darkness? Darkness? A GATEWAY? What happened to lumen naturale (light of reason)?

One important point that I seem to have forgotten to make was that when we're comparing the rational to its alternatives, nonrational/irratonal/uber-rationals (you didn't think about this possibility did you?), you're not allowed to, it would be a circulus probando to, use rationality to judge the merits and demerits of alternatives to rationality. It would be like making the defendant in a court case the judge at his own trial. No fair!

Maybe you aren't a fool or mad, after all. — Apollodorus

I don't know!

Some other time, then, Socrates. For now I am in a hurry to go somewhere, and it is time for me to go away.

Where is he going in such a hurry? — Fooloso4

Because he saw what was coming viz. nobody really knows anything at all! Even if he'd stayed long enough for Socrates to finish what was essentially Socrates talking to himself using hapless randoms from the Athenian citizenry as foils he would've learned absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero!

Consider now the transformation Socrates undergoes - from, "I think I know" to "I know that I don't know" every time he engages in dialectics with an Atheniam. What makes this transition epistemically, by extension philosophically, mind-blowing? Well, it's a dilemma actually: either you live in a delusion (you know nothing but you think you know) or realize you're an ignoramus (you know that you know nothing). Tough choice, don't you think? Reminds me of my handsome 8 year old nephew who's fond of putting me in a spot with would you rather this or that? questions. So, lemme try this on you all, would you rather be a mad person or would you rather be a foolish person? We're to make a selection between Scylla and Charybdis. What luck!

All is not lost though because the real choices are a mad person who doesn't know fae is mad or a foolish person who knows fae's foolish. The crucial difference between the two - insight (see below for clarification)

In psychology and psychiatry, insight can mean the ability to recognize one's own mental illness — Wikipedia

It all makes sense now: Temet Nosce

In another case, when he was informed that the prestigious Oracle of Delphi declare that there is no-one wiser than Socrates, he concluded "So I withdrew and thought to myself: ‘I am wiser ( sophoteron ) than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows ( eidenai ) anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know." — Wikipedia

What about Euthyphro? Was I right about him? Did he see what was coming? I'm not sure but assume he didn't know Socrates' point, that being we have to gain insight into our condition as a first step towards wisdom, something Athenians probably had great respect for. In other words, Euthyphro was a madman who never realized he was cuckoo! Tragic? I hardly think so...

There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line. — Oscar Levant

I, on the other hand, have chosen to impale myself on both horns of Socrates' dilemma, I'm mad and I'm a fool, I'm TheMadFool. :rofl:

There are countless non/ir-rational paths that have been taken. Tell me where they've lead that the path of reason hasn't already passed by. Point out one of those dark paths that have gone farther / further than the lumen naturale. Isn't the goal to turn (metanoia) from the shadows on the wall and see that we can leave Plato's Cave (mystification) by following the sun (reasoning)? — 180 Proof

Gracias for introducing me to a new term, lumen naturale. Had I known this concept when I started the thread, I would've happily used it - metaphors like these are probably the low hanging fruit which those who came before should've already hit upon and subjected to thorough examination and for these reasons borrowed instead of laboriously rediscovered. Muchas gracias for edifying on the illustrious history of the metaphor (I read a 5 line account of it).

That out of the way, the same short article on lumen naturale contrasts it with lumen gratiae (supernatural light of grace) and lumen fidei (divine revelation). These are exactly the kinds of lumen (light) that I'm suggesting deserve a second look, a second pass and not because they're feeling slighted or anything but because we might've dropped the ball by declaring them a total loss. You know how it is no? Junk can sometimes hold treasures of incalculable value.

However, lumen gratiae and lumen fidei were, per my analogy, two of probably many other stars that were visible in darkness of reason i.e. many others are out there, waiting to be be discovered by those who persevere in their search for such stars, the blessings of Fortuna will be at a premium.

the invasion of Russia. — Foghorn

History of military conflict has twice proven (Napoleon & Hitler) that to invade Russia is to invite Russia. :rofl:

Somehow the two words, "invade" and "invite" got lost in translation. Anyway, if one must at the end of the day invite Russia, why invade in the first place? Around Jack Robinson's barn we happily go!

My mind draws a complete blank. Either I've forgotten all that I've read (Alzheimer's :sad: ) or never read any (Moron :sad:) or I read but couldn't understand a damn word (Voynich manuscripit, Rohonc codex :sad: ) or the book was blank from cover to cover (A Record Of The Statesmanship And Political Achievements Of Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock, Regular Democratic Nominee For President Of The United States (1880) :sad: ).

Didn't realize there were so many ways to fuck up! There's more than one way to skin a cat - many was of becoming the (village) Idiot (Dostoevsky. I recall borrowing that book, maybe I have it on a shelf somewhere, never got around to flipping through it though).

I completely disagree. — Andrew4Handel

I gave it my best shot.

But then is it really called knowing if it's unreasonable? Or something else? — Moliere

Believe you me, there are highly reputed philosophers, logicians who've already made the first tentative steps in the direction I'm suggesting (irrationalism, dialetheism, paraconsistent logic, to name a few) but these are simply variations of older systems and thus suffer from some of the same "drawbacks" that ultimately render them ineffective for tasks they were meant for - to broaden the scope of logic in order to tackle more complex problems. This would qualify as a paradoxical maneuver in my book - both increasing and simultaneously decreasing the illumination logic provides - in my analogy, this amounts to a cleverly adjusting the illumination of logic to just the right level such that both shadows and stars can be seen. A sensible strategem - play it safe, why reinvent the wheel.

How is it possible. — Andrew4Handel

There are two kinds of sex - mental and physical. That mental sex is real is evidenced by transgenders (mismatch between mental and physical sex). Sex change is limited to the physical and, interestingly, a transgender will request that faer body be modified to match faer mental sex. I've never heard of any transgender requesting the opposite - reprogramming faer mind to match faer body. In other words, mental sex trumps physical sex i.e. a person's true sex is faer mental sex. I can pick up the telltale signs of a paradox - that transgenders exist implies that sex is mental but that they want a sex change implies that their main concern is physical sex! Go figure!

But aren't the events of the last five years a little too strange? If you went back to 2015 and tried to sell the story of what America's actually gone through, you would be laughed out of the room. Nobody would take you seriously. I think reality has been trying to hit us over the head with a certain lesson:this (Trump) is what happens when you devote your life to chasing idols like fame and money and power. This is what naked ego looks like. Take a good hard look. I think there's design to it all. — RogueAI

All I can say is anyone, that includes you, knows more than me about world affairs - I don't watch the news often, nor do I read much, listening is not my strong suit. I'll defer to your better judgment then. G'day.

No, I think in essence you are correct. It's just that sometimes when I see "mind" as opposed to "matter", I just type automatically. It's not a critique.

Just emphasizing that back in 17th and 18th century, you could make such a distinction. But by now it's not very substantive.

The only thing to stress in these metaphysical disputes would be how much consciousness matters, no pun intended. — Manuel

There's something off about it, I can feel it. Luckily or unluckily, I can't seem to put my finger on it. As far as I can tell, I'm stuck! Thanks for the help though. Much appreciated. G'day.

I thought my quoting Freddy's "Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity" would make the point that, for me, more light (reason) not less engenders philosophical understanding. "The truth"? As Freddy wrote "... a Fable: the history of an Error". — 180 Proof

:up: I won't pursue this matter further with you. You seem to have made up your mind and not without very good reasons for doing so. Thanks.

What seems like the most irrational approach to a problem will often be ignored even if the results bear fruit. — I like sushi

Not exactly the clip I would've liked but it's close enough so yeah!

Why assume that matter and mind are distinct?

Until someone can tell me where matter "stops" and mind "begins", this distinction doesn't make sense.

Another thing altogether is to say that mind (consciousness specifically) doesn't really exist, in a manner like Dennett argues, that everything is an illusion.

In that scenario we can only contrast a version of the world in which experience exists and one in which it does not. But this distinction between mind and matter can't be coherently formulated, I don't think. — Manuel

I just found it funny that idealism and materialism were actually claiming the same thing but in different ways. After all, if idealism (all is mind) is true, matter is mind and if materialism (all is matter) is true, mind is matter. Could you please point out where I've goofed up?

:ok: :up: Will get back to you if I think of anything worth spilling ink over.

Fun fact:

Idealism: everything is mind. Ergo, matter = mind
Materialism: everything is matter. Ergo, mind = matter

In the sense above, in both cases, mind = matter. There's no difference at all between idealism and materialism.