Nietzsche could claim some 'success', it seems. His voice can be heard amid more 'common' walks of life, in activism, in music, etc.That's very amusing. Good quesion however - who covers the same space in philosophical thinking in more recent times? I suspect you hate the postmodernists, but I'd say this is where Nietzsche's type of project (perspectivism and antifoundationalism) landed. Rorty was big on him - Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida... — Tom Storm
For someone who claims not to know anything, you certainly make a lot of very definite claims. Does performative contradiction not bother you? — Janus
In a way, I agree. But the way I agree is expressed well enough by Milton for me to allow him to make my argument here for or with me:I have long suspected that we embrace ideas which appeal to us aesthetically and emotionally but we take them as facts. Sounds like you relish notions of perfection and objectivity, two ideas I don't find convincing. I recognize that humans love their absolutes and their god surrogates. No point arguing further since there's no common ground. :wink: — Tom Storm
I do very much understand what he is saying. It seems to be a trend these days that if people do understand and disagree then others claim they just don't understand. I get that such a position would be tempting.Seems like you don’t understand the point made. No matter. I can’t speak for him but Josh’s does not subscribe to notions of ‘objective truth’ and I would be sympathetic to this. I certainly don’t believe in perfection. — Tom Storm
OMG you call Sartre unreadable and you ... repeated the vomitous word salad of Joshs? What?This is something I'll mull over. Notice that in this account the truth isn't just about what's objectively real. It's also about how we feel about and intuit events. If something matches our expectations and values, we accept it as true. And our feelings, such as apprehension or satisfaction, signify whether things are in line with what we believe. I think this circle of interpretation is helpful to consider in the ceaseless debates about gods or politics.
What it says about existentialism I can't tell you as I find Sartre unreadable. — Tom Storm
I mean, as long as there is a vomitorium nearby and I can hurl up the remains of any brief attempt at digesting that word salad, and then teams of well weaned soothsayers sift and arrange the remains of that effort into a new faith that we then ignore, ... I agree.:up: I find this frame particularly rich and interesting. — Tom Storm
Anger is indeed impatient, and that is my born-in failing, I'm afraid. Challenge and impatience. Socrates, my brother from another mother, would relate I think. 'Men of Athens ...'All very neat and tidy. But it looks to me like a large-scale sketch - too large scale and too sketchy to be much help. Possibly you have more to say, but you seem to be in a great hurry to get everything settled. — Ludwig V
No, indeed, quite the opposite. I am the one saying they are in fact so multivalent that fear and logic alone, our chosen religion of the day, IS NOT, and never really was, the key way. I in fact underscore the three paths that together must be balanced to yield the fourth way, wisdom. And as this is a philosophy site, where lovers of wisdom ostensibly congregate, I am hoping to find resonance.I'm saying that concepts here are much more complicated and ambivalent than you recognize. — Ludwig V
Well, yes, meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Circular logic is all that there really is, after all. The beauty of that truth escapes the fear oriented though in many cases. That whole asymptotic thing leaves them scrambling for the nearest exit, a short-cut. Surely we are smart enough to beat objective truth, or at least those wise sages that counsel working with confidence and not the Crimson Permanent Assurance! What was that about hats again?Fear can underlie the search for order and certainty. But it can also produce panic and chaos. — Ludwig V
Only a non anger type would ever deign to say such a thing as you just said.What it means to say that "anger demands you stand to the mystery" is not clear to me. — Ludwig V
If you mean to say, well my dear fellow, precisely what I am saying in a less cool way (ha ha), you are there. That is to say DUH we need to use fear and anger to balance those pesky immoral desires. Self-indulgence is no way to go through life. Greed, more more more; money, power, and children! MOAR!Desire certainly can pull you towards perfection, but it can also pull you in the opposite direction - even against your better judgement. — Ludwig V
No it cannot. Order is NEVER freedom. It is quintessentially NOT freedom, so you are wrong there. Order is by definition a restriction, a law. If you mean to say that GOOD order ENABLES freedom, ok, then please start saying what you really mean. These halfway truths are the FAILED wisdom of the past. Better speech and writing on this THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of any day, is ... well ... a GOOD idea. Don't you agree?Order can be oppression and restriction, but it can also be opportunity and freedom. — Ludwig V
No, again, this is precisely incorrect. Moral truth, the GOOD, is objective. Thankfully that is the case. If it were not the universe would self-destruct in the smallest fraction of time it allows for. But, if you are right, and morality is subjective, then that is my 'Brevity model'. That model states that within that smallest possible time, is where we are. But even in THAT case, the only reason you and I can speak this way now is because right now, and since the dawn of time, morality has been objective. So, really, the no leg to stand on idea permutates all the way back to objective morality. On we go taking rank advantage of the relative stability of this universe and immorally pretending to subjective morality. Sigh ...I can understand evil as the absence or opposite of good, but what is good or evil depends on the context; the same is true of perfection. — Ludwig V
Oh, I like that one! It's tricky! Look at you!(And perfection can oppress and imprison just as surely as it can liberate). — Ludwig V
How foolish a statement is this nonsense!? Please, you're well past the point of embarrassment!From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V
Me either! Seems like it takes a little something past certainty to live right here.I'm not at all sure that wisdom, understanding and intelligence, though admittedly related, are clearly enough defined to be of use in whatever you are trying to say about them. — Ludwig V
Love is nothing more than the system including all of this.You remind me of Plato's journey of the soul. But he gave huge importance to love, which seems to be missing from your sketch. I miss it. — Ludwig V
Ouch! The false humility of mind is easily seen here. And I am not just attacking you there. That is a real thing in the world. The restraint of order is a first order humility, cowardice. From that destroyed ego the fearful observe and plan and experience joy with humility. It is wise in a grand way, perhaps the best way to face uncertainty and such, hard times.You counsel from the path of mind alone
— Chet Hawkins
Actually, I submit Body alone. Mind, though it exists, is a system of empty signifiers displacing the Body with its empty Fiction.
But
— Chet Hawkins — ENOAH
I mean, clearly I know that. But it's fun to point out circumstance and make overmuch of it. It can weave a web of connection where it might seem that none is present. And that is the point.your happenstance name
— Chet Hawkins
It happily amuses me that you think my name has any relation to the Ark builder. That's part of what i meant by your writing having an inspirational tone. I am tempted not to correct you. But alas, no. — ENOAH
I mean you and I can mostly agree here, as mentioned. But the final mover, the truth, remains balanced and supportive of the only real law, free will.The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps, now you see I am not purporting a predetermined reality; but an interconnected one where even our "choices" have been triggered, even by structures of Reasoning and logic autonomously arising to the task, having been input into our minds at some point(s) in our local and universal history. — ENOAH
No instead, this is a lack of faith from order towards the precarious requirements of balance. Rather than face the truth of the difficulty, the orderly type, seeing this ahead of the chaos types, despairs of ever being able to do it. That fear sends them demanding down branches of false order, like determinism. It's predictable. It's sufferable.In fact, my intuition is that those who push free will do so out of fear and wishful thinking; a conceited desire for our constructions to be real etc. — ENOAH
No, desire is no illusion. It is a primal force. Fear and anger are the only other two equal forces. Everything permutates from the interaction of those three.What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.
— Chet Hawkins
This is nice. Like you, I like to think about the possibilities of morality or nobility of an atom. But.
You mention "desire" a few times but I'm unsure of its role. For me, there are drives, and feelings, but desire is like meaning, order, and choice: constructs of the Mind which superimposes itself on Nature and displaces it with Narratives. Desire evolved in the system of Mind (not by design or predeterminedly, but by chance) to keep the Signifiers growing and constructing. — ENOAH
I explained it. Hopefully that can at least be informative of my stance.Ah, here I am again. Far too much to say, to little room to elaborate.
I am interested in how desire fits in for you as used in your reply above. — ENOAH
Thank you! And that is awesome to hear and ... things get interesting. I am trying to make my tack a polished thing and that is not easy when one is trying to make a case, present for propriety amid truth. And then make sure that this presentation is in no way a deception, apart from pointing at it and saying, 'yes this is a stretch here, but it seems like the BEST stretch I can think of right now.'Firstly, I sincerely admire your writing, at least in this particular response. And whether I fully understand/follow/agree or not, it is inspiring in a way which transcends the topics being discussed. There are others like you in this forum, but it merits mentioning. I'll read your response more thoughtfully (likely a few times) and will let you know if I have any comments relating to this post. — ENOAH
I admit quite easily to this possibility, and you are direct and fair-minded to present it.But for now:
determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection
— Chet Hawkins
Is it possible that this interconnectedness of all things "idea" which inspires my submission that, to keep it simple, there is nowhere a real burden of choice, but only the illusion that a deliberate being is deliberately choosing (and the suffering which is concomitant with that illusion)...is it not possible that that is not determinism, but only seen as determinism from a perspective which also sees free will and the burden of choice. — ENOAH
And an examination of each chooser would reveal more to this equation. The various motivations impact each other in a complex pattern. With some choosers that tend to have no power, what they had for breakfast can be the deciding factor. With others that tend to have power, their life thrust and belief set is perhaps an almost tyrannical deciding factor. That is chaos and order respectively. But then we have to consider the state, the times, etc. The interweave cannot easily predict which specific motivation will rise to the top in any state. It can be surprising.Again, to keep it simple. When x triggers y triggers z triggers suicide, the suicide was not predetermined. X could have triggered b instead, and y could have triggered quitting one's job. "Choice" is built into that process, but it is an illusion, in that the "choice" was triggered. — ENOAH
And here we disagree entirely. No, it is NOT possible. Were fundamental balance not the truth, the universe would self destruct instantly. It would take an amount of time that is the smallest possible unit of time. That fundamental imbalance would be the most catastrophic truth in existence. Instead the 'bargain' made is that imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE.Sure call that chaos, call it meaningless. But is it not possible that from the perspective of the "order" we have constructed; a thing necessarily working with/making meaning, things like meaning, order, balance, and perfection matter. While really, Nature is before/beyond that "order" and (only because we have to assess its function do I say this:) it "functions" as a whole--not with design or predetermination--where each part has an effect upon the other(s) including, ultimately, that whole. — ENOAH
This is ... not nearly so well crafted as it must be to be meaningful. Order is present already. In fact I define fear and thus order ENTIRELY as an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. On any level within reality, order is only tied to the past. It seems compelling. All awareness is order, clearly. All readiness is order. Joy as a decision, is orderly. And joy and happiness are NOT the same things.Being before/beyond the order (human Mind) of course we will impose order upon it as part of our dominion over Nature. That is, as part of human Mind displacing Reality. — ENOAH
Et tu Brute? I agree entirely. I feel so embarrassed to have expressed myself so poorly here. These issues of philosophy require a virtuoso. I am not equal to that task. But I am called to it. So, on-on!Anyway, I fear tge complexity of my thoughts about this far exceed my capacity to express it briefly in this forum. I find, the best I can do is offer morsels with the hope, not just that someone bites, like you; but that someone is able to digest it, that's my biggest challenge. Do not, from that, feel obligated to continue biting. I do appreciate your input already. — ENOAH
If the experience of it does not lead to it again, is that accurate? Idempotency must be ... the thing. Meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Which was the cause and which the effect? The balance is that each is both. That is the only thing that could be a balance.inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice
— Chet Hawkins
Or, there is no "choice." Everything is interconnected. Every action is a reaction to a trigger(s); the same principle applying to each trigger. — ENOAH
You confuse inertia with truth. Really? Why so drawn?Is this not so from subparticles to suicide? a triggered b triggered c triggered molecular bonding. x triggered y triggered z triggered suicide. Even when the free act of choosing seems indisputable, like in difficult decisions where one wishes one had no choice, the difficulty, the process, and the final action were each reactions to triggers. — ENOAH
And yet nature is the entity anthropomorphized that we most ascribe to as having balance. I love it that you went there. It seems you wish to be convinced! On-on!Choice is the illusion which arises when we (humans uniquely) construct and superimpose meaning retroactively (albeit often with lightning speed) onto the autonomous activities of Nature (said construction and superimposition also caused by triggers). — ENOAH
And the heart has no say? Does the heart ALLOW the mind free reign? What of the body? Does it offer no constraint upon this mind? Or on the heart? These three are compelling are they not? Why is it these three in humanity the greatest moral exemplar we know of? Is Homo Sapiens Sapiens deserving of that moniker? You counsel from the path of mind alone (as do many an most academics and their groupies). But Noah had to prepare humanity for a RIDICULOUS tragedy that no one else foresaw. What is/was the predetermined source of that? And if not Noah then let's ignore your happenstance name and use someone like the Wright Brothers.It takes real courage to pursue meaning beyond the physical and to have the balance amid that pursuit to resist temptations in the realm of imagination and forms only
— Chet Hawkins
Or does it take no courage at all, but only imagination and forms? Is meaning also autonomously constructed and superimposed as part of an evolved system we have come to think of as directed by the Subject, "I"; and to "know" as our Mind? — ENOAH
What dread demand requires an atom hold itself to an identity? Just physics right? Not at all. The atom is a moral agent. It 'knows' what it is, and let there be no doubt, it is wrong. It can be other. This demand, this consistency, is order. Order is meaning (chaos and balance are meaning also. Order IS NOT alone as meaning). What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.Where in Nature is there striving for meaning? Where outside of human minds is meaning pursued? — ENOAH
Well, it is a classical backwards walk, baby steps to glory! But, yes, I suppose any path can meander around and find its way finally to the end of the maze. Hand to left wall and go.How do we relate meaning to the physical world? It does seem clear in the interactions, but not the ... essence ... of the physical world.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps it is enough to understand the interactions. — Ludwig V
Regardless of what he meant, I would say that any such assertion is LAUGHABLE in its obvious wrongness. The implication being, again, that Not(wisdom >> intelligence){my point}. That is to say, the idea realm is the ostensible correct aim, the destination. And this (fool) very educated man deigns to suggest that it's enacting is easy?You are ONLY saying for us (or Wittgenstein and you, less me as a dread assertion) these training wheels of 'safe frictioned ground' are still needed.
— Chet Hawkins
Not quite the intended meaning. Wittgenstein was saying that the ideal world seems more comprehensible, but that is largely illusion. In order to make progress, we need resistance, and that requires the rough ground. For him, it is the ideal that has the training wheels, and the rough ground is where the work gets done. — Ludwig V
Au contraire. How is it that life comes from not life? Science thinks it knows. But I say instead that life comes because it can do nothing else. It is not predestined so much as it is intrinsic. For something to be predestined it would have to be missing at some point. It never was missing.The seeds of moral agency are not amenable to the arbitrary science that in its failing cannot explain why the universe is alive. I mean science admits that SOME parts are alive. But in understanding unity and belonging, the real understanding is that anything IS anything else in the final sense.
— Chet Hawkins
I can sort of follow the first two sentences here - except that the reason science cannot explain why the universe is alive is that not all of the universe is alive. — Ludwig V
Oh yes it does! It tells us that science is NOT THE ONLY WAY. It hints that science is insufficient in much of our efforts to help us be wise, to even answer its little corner (one third) of the universe, awareness. Wisdom is so much more. Understanding is so much more. We need that ... more ... to function RIGHTLY in every now. And overt and improper dedication to the single path of order amid fear is cowardly. That is the primal all encompassing sin of fear.But the fact that science cannot explain something doesn't tell us very much at all. — Ludwig V
Certainty is an absurd goal. Anger demands you stand to the mystery. Desire pulls you towards perfection and only a living universe can respond, so it is alive, and it does. Evolution towards greater moral agency is a law of the universe.The last sentence here is beyond my understanding, as is the rest of the paragraph. I can see that you are arguing that wisdom is more than intelligence. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't see where it gets us. — Ludwig V
:evilgrinNo, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that.
— Chet Hawkins
I can see what you mean in what you write. — Ludwig V
I agree with your sentiment, but, it is the need factor that is the thing to doubt in the sense of wisdom."Prosaic" is a complex idea, and quite annoying for those in a poetic or transcendental state of mind. Those are much more exciting.
Nonetheless, what is ordinary, everyday, and commonplace is what we start from and will return to. More than that, what is extraordinary and exciting, if prolonged, will become prosaic. We cannot do without poetry and we cannot do without prose.
I would rather say that I find it necessary to keep my feet (or at least one foot or toe) on the ground. You say: -
So defining that non-physical realm of Plato's forms is much more important and essential, than our keen grasp of the obvious insistence on practical physical matters in the world today all about us would easily show.
— Chet Hawkins
But Wittgenstein finds that the ideal, logical forms are indeed perfection and consequently are like a smooth, frictionless surface. He observes:-
"We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!" (Philosophical Investigations Section 107). — Ludwig V
Do not let this pass so easily. You give up and run at first blush? Let me be brazen enough to ask for the benefit of the doubt. You did not comment on ALL THAT OTHER information. So the topic was ... a) not addressed, or b) read but deemed altogether to unaddressable. It's kind of unknown.The ONLY thing in all of existence, including physical matter, is the state of free will, inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice.
— Chet Hawkins
If you had said that every particle in the universe was free, I could have more or less followed you. What it means to say that every particle in the universal is burdened with choice escapes me entirely.
Communication requires a shared context. Given this starting-point, I'm afraid that we have a serious communication problem. — Ludwig V
I have related insight into BOTH these perspectives and WHY the confusion arises.Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now we all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given.
— Arne
That's quite true. Though perhaps it is more true in Anglophone philosophy than elsewhere. I've encountered the claim before, but somehow I've missed the argument that shows that it is true. I feel I'm left with a blind choice, so I'm not happy. Thinking about it, I'm inclined to understand Sartre's "precedes" as a metaphor; but he doesn't seem to give us much to interpret it. Since the concept of bare existence seems incomprehensible, Heidegger's formulation seems more plausible, so I'm inclined to go with that. But I don't believe that I really understand either concept. — Ludwig V
I agree entirely. And these interactions, to be meaningful, must extend past the colloquial local time scope. That means they have to be eternal or laws to be 'of value'. Memorizing and truly creating delusional non-laws does not help us, and has led to entire eons of 'misinformation' as a dynasty. It is dynastic because investment, once made, seems to personal and deep to let go of. The increasing chaos these days is eroding this tendency and people are vacillating back and forth with no basis other than day to day whim and comfort. It's just survival mode, if you follow.It seems inescapable that fact and value, although distinct, are interwoven in language in order to serve human interests and capacities. What would be the point of language if that were not so? It does seem that it would be more helpful to articulate the ways in which they interact rather than simply trying to separate them into separate discourses. — Ludwig V
No, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that.Free will and choice are the only essence in existence.
— Chet Hawkins
I assume you mean "in the existence of humans as people". — Ludwig V
Well, ... Amen to that! Ha ha!I wish pragmatists would find something less narrow-minded than "useful". — Ludwig V
'Better situated' is perhaps a sobering but ultimately timid term to describe agency, the burden of experience. It may be more true than not, but it plays games with truth, rather than addressing truth head-on. Either way, fallibility means mistakes will be made. So, better by far to face the truth with equal measures of courage and analysis. That is to say: As far as we know from this 'situation' we are the best equipped to make any description of ... anything, including the fundamental ontological structure of a fish, and quite to the point INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. To mention the fact that we are not ACTUALLY fish is rather silly, even if it is of passing interest as a point of note, mostly to tame conceit.you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans
— Chet Hawkins
I made no such implication. Instead, I did and do assert that Heidegger is better situated to describe the fundamental ontological structure of a human than of a fish. It matters not to Heidegger if fish turn out to have the same fundamental ontological structure as human. But how would he know? He doesn't experience being as a fish.
Dasein is the term given to any and all beings having the characteristics of Dasein. Being a Dasein is not a social status among biological organisms and it comes with no entitlements. — Arne
Being-in-the-world is a fundamental state, not a social status. It doesn't make anybody special. — Arne
Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply.As true as all of that may be, it is important to keep in mind that those are your claims and not Heidegger's. — Arne
Who said anyone is special? Heidegger is not making any normative claims regarding Dasein. A bird is in a unique position for seeing the entire forest. A fish is in a unique position for seeing what is at the bottom of a lake. A human is in a unique position for seeing the ontological structure of being a human. There are no awards for being pre-ontological. — Arne
I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree.I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world. — Arne
Well, My own perspective agrees that 'God' is a weird way to think of things. But 'Truth', 'Love', and 'All' work just fine for the same thing without the casting a deity in your own image or culture's wishes thing.I've never read anything about existentialism, but I agree with both of these.
One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves."
— BC
The definition that I am working off of is this:
a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.
— Chet Hawkins — Patterner
Sadly, and apparently it is not evident that I have read quite a bit of it. And gleaned much over the years when I was forced to look up his own words rather than accept others' interpretations. Thankfully, that process left me convinced I was not as deluded as some suspect. But you know, I've always had a penchant for maladroit grandiosity.Nietzsche might be a good fit. And I recommend reading his books in the order in which they were published. There is a consistency in the development of his thought from the first book to the last. — Arne
The undead then, a being, yet sans the curriculum vitae! En soi! La mort c'est tout!For Heidegger, a corpse cannot be "in" the world. The only entity that can be "in" the world is Dasein. Any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein (such as a corpse) are "within" the world that Dasein is "in". — Arne
I mean, what is the difference to you? I am not specifically ... after ... you, on that point, more curious. But the thing is, can just being be wrong?Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence.
— Arne
I've always thought existence – how one actively exists – creates (one's) essence – becomes who one is. They (usually) reject the notion of "our essence" which is why (most) "existentialists" also deny the (non-subjective) designation. In any case, "being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof
Hear! Here!↪Rob J Kennedy
I think that it is problematic to try to describe oneself as being or not being an existentialist. Having read the ideas of some of the writings, such as Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, I embrace some aspects of the philosophy, possibly the nature of existentialist anxiety, but I wouldn't go as far as to define myself as an existentialist, anymore than I embrace aspects of Buddhism but don't call myself a Buddhist.
Labels of philosophical thinking are useful for navigating ideas but not in a boxed way. I am often left perplexed by equal opportunities parts of forms, asking about religion. I often end up ticking the 'other' box and thinking that an essay would be more appropriate. It may be that the spirit of existentialism is opposed to boxes and labels, in the pursuit of freedom itself. — Jack Cummins
Everyone is both a teacher and a student. To deny the role of the teacher is avoiding responsibility. To deny the role of the student is arrogance and short-sightedness, both.What is ones truth if no one asks? Is that learnable? I am no teacher... — Kizzy
Why is hard to judge. People spend their whole lives together and only see what touches them in a pattern they are willing to admit.Then who is asking? Why? — Kizzy
That is very normal for type 5. They seek awareness and then they hoard it. Our D&D group got to the point with one of our players that we would get into a middle part of a story and torture his character to tell us what he knew. He had all the divination magic and stealth and recon skills but savored not telling anyone to preserve his value and superiority as a feeling. We actually caused the player, the man himself, to mature some. He realized he did that in real life as well.You could be fully aware without having to spread or share any knowings. — Kizzy
Most people are dangerously unaware of almost everything. They maintain awareness and YES awareness takes maintenance, on just enough to be moderately happy in their estimation. Type 5 is anger infused fear. That is withdrawn and lazy about its thing, as a regular sin.Are you aware or becoming aware? Is it happening simultaneously? Are you always becoming aware of new things or can you turn it on and off? or both? Are you aware of when you are being unaware? — Kizzy
Wow that was very well said. Just so. Fear, anger, and desire must work together for wisdom. Any virtue is placed on an exponent in one and only one (objective) case. That case is the case of wisdom, of the GOOD. If we intend towards the GOOD, only, can we approach perfection. Perfection is the GOOD.I feel like an "ultimate awareness" could be reached after self awareness is mastered but the end of awareness is unforeseen...certain attributes can make you better at being aware of things, surroundings, scenarios or being able to become aware of certain or even specific things but ultimate awareness.. its like using the body and mind together to learn about its own self. — Kizzy
Ok wow! That was a lot of detail. But you are on to the right tack to me.Awareness could also be a reminder of a truth one has known to be true all along, despite all possible outcomes and oppositions faced. Like one can "spread awareness" while being unaware at the same time. Examples: surroundings arent fit to be receptive of information, dangerous conditions, bad audience "read the room", a person could have a hidden agenda maybe while promoting a promising message thinking people cant see through the lies etc. The "Ultimate Awareness" one can have doesnt have anything to do with a whole truth, I dont think... because it is up to the aware person to let the unaware know how aware they really are. Or however they want to be perceived. Ultimate awareness requires knowing who is listening and who is just talking or asking things to just say something because they want to engage in general, despite the topic of discussion, despite the answers...unaware people sometimes dont know what they want to hear. Or they ask the person that will give them the answer they know they will give and want to hear. Thats awareness but If they want to hear one answer, one they already know to be true to them and arent willing to see things differently, then why even ask? Maybe thats the point. No stupid questions, i guess. — Kizzy
Truth is objective, the same truth to all. There is no 'your truth'. There is only objective truth, and everyone's MISTAKES about what truth is.But really...Who asked? Whose truth do you seek and who are you to them? That says a lot. — Kizzy
No one can arrive at perfection, ever. It is probably that that is the purpose of the universe, to eternally seek it and yet not be able to arrive at it. But, like, entertaining the notion of self-mastery is horrid. Self-mastering, implying the ongoing process, is a BETTER term.Ask yourself what it may take to be reach "ultimate awareness"...and if you think you are capable of getting there, that is it. — Kizzy
Who is not important, finally.I dont think you could find a better answer, are you really looking for whole truth? Why do you deserve any sort of truth, when you dont even know who to ask? — Kizzy
Exactly! When faced with moral truth, with a glimpse of perfection, many and most will trun aside and claim to be 'only human'. Sorry, 'the heart wants what the heat wants!' It is not wise. But it is normal and expected. Horse, water. RIGHT desire is objective, not subjective. Most people will rankle at that truth.When you dont know who to ask, the truth might not then be true at all because of such unawareness of the self who is seeking answers to baseless questions they didnt even want to know answers to in the first place. — Kizzy
I would disagree. Accepting delusion is not wise. And accepting anything, becoming satisfied in any way, is immoral. My quote is 'Satisfaction is death!' This is why orgasm is called the 'little death' because it is so satisfying. All desire (to live even) recedes temporarily. The right chooser 'gets ready' again quickly. Do not wallow in death!Make it make sense...for you with the help of others whoms answers actually matter to you, and with good reason as to why they should.... Or accept your own answer. Ask yourself and accept it. Or dont and wait for the answer that fits best in your reality. Thats valid enough. — Kizzy
Now I agree.At least look at this as spreading awareness about how people are so unaware of who they are and who they are seeking answers from, yet somehow thinking they can handle or are deserving of any sort of truth? — Kizzy
Lol, the final sentence.If you dont have self awareness you are lucky to end up with a psychiatrist. If you arent capable of putting the trust in anyones hands to tell you what is best for YOU when YOU should know the answer or how to get to the answer....Being that unaware that you cant explain what you are doing and why you do what you do is dangerous, and there are cases like the one presented above in the OP where the woman needs to be institutionalized and deserves to be heard but can she explain herself and feelings are they reasonable? Who is she asking to validate? Is she helpless? I think not...she didnt get put there automatically. It takes $$$, family, whatever, someone is taking your burden of life and adding it to their own burdens, trying to help the best they know but you can only help yourself, we know this already and this is a "What if" scenario that takes more context and details to make it make sense...We only know what YOU tell us. Who are you? Why do we know you more than you? That shouldnt be true, you can make it not true. Also, I am delusional. — Kizzy
Well, THAT is maddeningly insulting. My expertise is present in many and varied fields.It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things.
— Chet Hawkins
You are not alone, but you are apparently in the unfortunate situation of never having developed expertise of much significance. — wonderer1
But they do not. They believe things and can demonstrate reasonable success with this belief. Therefore and of course I can and do often believe them. So your point is not lost on me. By mine is lost apparently on you, and indeed, still a point. Significance being what it is, perhaps I erred in addressing yet another who refuses to see.For me, knowing things plays a huge role in paying the bills. Knowing that other people know things is immensely helpful as well. — wonderer1
Incorrect. If you know, you know all the way. There can be no reason to seek more. That is what 'knowing' should mean as it partakes too heavily of perfection, is my point. And ANY perfect virtue requires all virtues to be perfect, which is the nature of wisdom itself, again MY point.After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know.
— Chet Hawkins
Well, I'm living proof that you are wrong about that. Trying to know reveals that there is so much more that might be known, than one could possibly get around to. All the more reason to keep learning. — wonderer1
Learning from others is precisely my thing. But I would also suggest that you are me and I am you, finally, if truth is KNOWN. So, there are no others, only other parts of me.But I'm guessing learning from others really isn't your thing. — wonderer1
And facts are only a subset of beliefs. They are exalted in no way beyond that. I would offer indeed by way of concession that even what I deem a 'fact' is what I consider to be 'an acceptably probable belief', but in doing so, I realize there is always a small chance of failure, of not KNOWING, because knowing is impossible.If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point.
— Chet Hawkins
I understand that all you have is beliefs. (Or at least you are into thinking so.) — wonderer1
And you say trite small things like all Pragmatists that reek of fear and the trap of KNOWING. This Vulcan stagnation is petty and cold. It has no fire. And life includes passion and passion is worthy, a part of wisdom.Me? I'm left with all sorts of evidence. Not to mention internet access to a society where a lot of people have looked into things that I haven't looked at the evidence for, and therefore know things that I don't. — wonderer1
One really must wonder. Oh, um, sorry!That is my impressiom. He mentioned "cause" earlier. My impression is he is confusing a statement about logical entailment for a statement about causality. — wonderer1
It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things. After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know. What would be the point of further trying?↪Chet Hawkins I know trillions of things. So do others. Just because you claim that one cannot know anything it does not make it true. — Truth Seeker
It does indeed, if one's model of the universe is correct.Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense.
— Corvus
No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino
I would suppose that I should not be referred to as 'your guy' in any sense that I am aware of. That turn of phrase seems like the pretentious equivalent of 'bruh'. But yes, quite serious. Is the entire universe not enough evidence? How do you define evidence?I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence.
— Chet Hawkins
Are you serious my guy? — AmadeusD
I have only begun to preen. The lightning and the thunder are coming soon. But, no, alas, I am only a humble philosopher, loving wisdom, and trying to help others understand what wisdom is, as many seem to have quite typical and pointless erroneous impressions of what it is. Of course, I admit freely that I am one such, just with less relative error than many and most in my asserted model.offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.
— Chet Hawkins
Your self image is a rather impressive edifice — AmadeusD
Well, you do not say how or offer any specific. Why bother to respond at all?Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?
— Chet Hawkins
Oh, interesting. :) — AmadeusD
↪Chet Hawkins Your worldview is esoteric and your evidence is not evidence but faith. — Truth Seeker
Shaka, when the walls fell!Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
— Chet Hawkins
I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence. — AmadeusD
Sense alone is your goal. It cannot be the only goal or that is not wisdom. Wisdom seems to defy reason, via anger and desire. Reason is only fear. The fourth way includes all the other three in balance. If it seems like I am spouting lunacy only, I offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:
How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware.
— Chet Hawkins
Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth.
— Chet Hawkins
)
dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim: — AmadeusD
I take that as high praise. Many thanks!It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.
— Chet Hawkins
It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do. — AmadeusD
The last bit has to be said. Compassion helps the giver. Why?Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die.
— jgill
Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view. — Beverley