But the whole point is about what the experience is actually of. — S

That's the whole point for YOU. My contention is that it is the experience itself that matters, not anybody's explanation of it.

Your claim that my kind of atheism is "just faith" is not only unwarranted, but ludicrous. — S

Please prove that human reason is qualified to deliver credible answers, or even credible theories, on the very largest and most fundamental of questions. This is the very same challenge you reasonably present to holy books, but are not intellectually honest enough to present to your own chosen authority. Very normal, very understandable, very bad philosophy.

Your suggestion that reason is unqualified for the task at hand is self-defeating through performative contradiction. You rely on reason to reach the same conclusion that I do. — S

You're not reading what I'm writing, and are rejecting an assertion of your own invention. I never said reason is unqualified for everything. It may not even be unqualified for the very largest of questions. But you have not proven that it is qualified, so all of your clever fancy pants logic dancing can be dismissed with a casual wave of the hand, just as you dismiss Bible claims for the same reason.

What's so absurd about your rhetoric, is that behind it all, I have reached the same conclusions that you have, and we've both done this through reason. — S

You have no idea what my conclusions are because like most people on philosophy forums you are trapped inside the tiny prison cell of the God debate. Very normal, very understandable, not very impressive or persuasive.

Is it that you see the word "atheist" and you become like a wild bull who has seen red? That's what I suspect. A bit like "nuclear weapons". It's just a word. We don't even have to call it that. You don't have to get so triggered at the mere mention of it. Calm down, dear. You're not being reasonable when you get yourself all worked up and start spouting nonsense. — S

Stick it up your ass my friend, stick it up your ass. Thank you very much. :smile:

Sanders may sound revolutionary from an American perspective but he's mostly advocating for things that most of the West is already doing. — Judaka

Yes, agreed.

The problem is the way he is advocating for it doesn't appear to be as balanced or as sensible as what the other countries did — Judaka

But he's not running in those other countries. He's running in an insane nation which elected Trump.

According to my undercover secret sources, the Mueller report also contains video of Trump down on his knees giving Putin a blow job. You don't have to believe me, you'll be able to see for yourself. But, my God, who would want to do that???

You haven't even begun to criticise my kind of atheism, — S

Your kind of atheism, all kinds of atheism, are just faith. All of it, all flavors of atheism, depend on unproven qualifications of a chosen authority

Your whole "argument" amounts to little more than fallacy. The fallacy of ad hominem, the fallacy of guilt by association, the fallacy of false equivalence — S

I will help you debunk me, as you are clearly not capable of it. My illogic is in the persistent unfounded assumption that discussing this on philosophy forums can accomplish anything at all.

My kind of atheism is the kind which has rejected theism and strong atheism, not as impossible, but as unwarranted, and unwarranted due to insufficient evidence in support of them. — S

Depends on the qualifications of human reason for the task at hand, which remains unproven.

You're just like the theists you are so desperate to be superior to. You want to know. You want an answer, a story, some kind of conclusion, or at least a theory, or at least some method of developing a theory. But you have no such method. So you invent an answer, and then use that fantasy answer to inflate your self image.

At that point the investigation is essentially over, because now all your efforts will be invested in protecting that wonderful self image story.

I'm not merely repeating your point, I'm pointing out that, contrary to your own words, "nothing resolved", it shows that the philosophical problem has been largely resolved, if not completely. — S

Yes, like I keep saying, the problem is resolved, the investigation come to a useful insight. Nobody knows what they're talking about. Your atheism and the whole glorious ego structure you've built upon it is deflated, dead, all gone, bye bye now. Some people can handle that, some can't. We shall see in time which of those people you are.

That's what resolving philosophical problems consists in: applying reason, logical analysis, making an assessment, reaching a conclusion, rejecting possible alternatives as unwarranted... — S

That's what I'm asking you to do. And you keep refusing to do it. Atheism is not reason. Atheism is a faith which competes with theism.

How can you say that nothing has been resolved, when by applying reason, we can discover that we're too ignorant to reasonably conclude either theism or strong atheism? — S

You're repeating the point I just made. Yes, the investigation has revealed that we are ignorant. Thus, the entire basis upon which you accept one position within the God debate and reject another has been destroyed. You are left with nothing. A state of affairs which matches the vast overwhelming majority of reality.

Should I abandon reason? No. — S

Nobody said you should abandon reason. I'm asking you to do reason, to be fully faithful to your own chosen methodology. You've challenged holy books. Good! Now just keep going and challenge all other proposed authorities too, including the one you've chosen.

You're confusing reason and ideology.

Reason will challenge all proposed authorities in an even handed manner with no dog in the fight.

Ideology attempts to use logic calculations to promote and defend a fixed position. When evidence arises that is inconvenient to that fixed position, such evidence is discarded.

You do realise that that post is an example of using reason to reach a similar conclusion to me? — S

Yes, reason is qualified to outline the boundaries of our ignorance. As example, I can use reason to discover that I'm not going to become the next Einstein.

We're doing the same thing in the sense we are using the same methodology. The difference between us is that so far you've only challenged one chosen authority, whereas I am challenging them both.

Once we challenge both authorities, and see that neither can pass the test, the God debate collapses of it's own weight.

Some people will be happy about this, and others will not.

Some people (on both sides) have built a very elaborate and cherished self image out of their position within the God debate, and thus they will resist any threat to the God debate.

Other people will find that while they've become bored by the endlessly predictable and unproductive children's merry-go-round to nowhere patterns of the God debate, they are still incurably interested in investigating further.

To it's credit, the God debate has revealed useful information, we are ignorant in regards to such enormous questions. Thousands of years of God debate and nothing resolved equals ignorance.

So an honest investigator with a sincere interest will take what the God debate investigation has revealed, and follow that trail. We don't have to stop just because we didn't find the answer we were hoping to find.

You seem to have a superiority complex. — S

That's because I am superior to you in regards to such questions, with no credit due to me nor any blame due to you, as neither of us had anything to do with when we were born. I've been doing this since before you were born. We are not equals, even though forum technology may make it seem so.

It is the height of foolishness to attempt me to defend reason. — S

Now this I agree with. :smile: Seriously, I do this routinely, expect the human realm to be based on reason, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Age does not cure all ills apparently, at least not in my case.

How can I defend reason, except with reason or unreason? — S

You can test whether reason is qualified for the task at hand, the analysis of the very largest of questions (scope of God claims).

We will all agree that human reason can be very useful for very many things, but that does not automatically equal human reason being useful for EVERYTHING. You're assuming without questioning and without proof that human reason is qualified for this investigation. You are a person of faith. Who hasn't yet learned you are a person of faith.

All I'm suggesting is that you apply the very same test you reasonably present to holy books to your own chosen authority, human reason. I'm asking only that you be loyal to your own chosen methodology.

Once such an intellectually honest investigation is conducted, and it's seen that nobody's chosen authority can be proven qualified, a (imho) much more interesting area of investigation opens up.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is nothing (or perhaps relative nothing). So without reference to any religion at all, using only observation of reality, we can see that nothing is a very big deal indeed.

What color socks am I wearing?

Members have no idea. Members have no way of finding out. Members could debate the question for centuries, but in the end they'd wind up right where they started because there is no way to resolve the debate.

One way out of this cage is to simply declare the debate about my socks as a fun game which serves no higher purpose than fun. It can be reasonable to choose fun as a meaningful purpose for such an investigation.

Another way out would be to just forget about my socks and go do something else, play golf perhaps. This is reasonable too, because why waste a lot of time debating a question which can never be resolved.

And then there's this.

If one is 1) incurably interested in my socks and can't let that topic go, and 2) also sees there is no way to ever determine the color of my socks, the useful question then becomes...

What is our relationship with the unknown, the unknowable?

The musician Stephen Stills once wrote, "If you can't be with the one you love honey, love the one you're with."

That's the situation we find ourselves in. We want to know! But we can't know. And so the rational act is to love the one we're with, our ignorance.

Think of ignorance as some girl you picked up at a bar. :smile: She's not the one you wanted. Not the one you wanted at all. But now she's in your bed. What are you going to do with her?

I don't think you mean I'm "not speaking properly." I think you mean I'm wrong. I'll have you know I'm very articulant, articulous .....Me talk good. — T Clark

This made me laugh! And even before I've finished the first cup of coffee. :smile:

The burden of proof is on the theist and the teapotist, not on me. — S

The burden you carry is to prove that human reason can generate meaningful credible statements about phenomena the scale of gods, should such a thing exist. The theist carries the same burden in regards to their chosen authority, typically a holy book.

As example, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask the theist to prove the qualifications of their holy book for answering the very largest of questions (scope of god claims). If they can not provide such proof, then you can in one sweep of the hand dismiss all claims arising from that source. You know, there's no point in spending years debating each and every Bible verse interpretation if the theist can not demonstrate the Bible is a credible authority on the matters it is speaking to.

What you don't yet get, because you are not yet a person of reason but merely an ideologist, is that everything in that last paragraph applies to you and atheism as well, to the very same degree.

A useful conversation on these subjects does not begin until 1) both chosen authorities have been asked for proof of their qualifications (in regards to the largest of questions), and 2) both authorities are shown to fail that test, and 3) at least some members of the conversation accept what this evidence says and proceed to investigate further based on that understanding.

As to your holy book, human reason, let's put that in some context instead of just blindly believing without question that human reason is relevant and useful.

GOD: A theory about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

REASON: The very poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, or maybe one of billions of universes etc.

Automatically assuming without questioning that human reason can deliver useful data on questions of such enormous scale is like believing without questioning that a squirrel can understand the Internet. Such an assumption is very normal and very understandable, and very poor philosophy.

I strongly agree with you here. Wait, no I don't. Yikes, I can't tell whether I agree with you or not. — T Clark

Well, don't worry about agreeing, just investigate for yourself.

Time spent rightly criticising strong atheists is time better spent than time wasted attacking me for being perfectly reasonable — S

You're being perfectly reasonable in the sense of your position being very normal. Normal, not a product of reason.

Our assertions about the gods are more than blind guesses. They are culturally engineered facts. In other words, we know that gods exist because we invented them. — Bitter Crank

I think it's more like an attempt to explain color to a blind man. There are thousands of ways one might attempt to do that, which may create the appearance of a great deal of conflict and contradiction even though all the varied explanations are attempting to point to the same thing.

Imho, the divisive nature of thought causes us to assume that a god would be a "thing", something unique and separate from everything else that thus requires a definition, a boundary line between "god" and "non-god". And then of course we begin to argue over the competing definitions.

A better model for god may be the example of space which is everywhere in everything from the smallest to largest scales, but not a separate "thing". Space transcends simplistic dualistic paradigms like "exists vs. doesn't exist" and I suspect the phenomena we label god does as well.

The nature of thought, the way it works, is likely causing to ask a bad question from which we will never derive a good answer.

Empirically, whatever is not part of the current best explanation doesn't exist. So unicorns, invisible teapots and gods all do not exist, except as purely mental concepts. — Echarmion

Not only that, only 100 years ago before Hubble 99% of the universe didn't exist. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, they didn't exist, poof, gone!

Absence of evidence is evidence of an absence of evidence.

Faith can represent a number of daily activities, but it happens to go unnoticed majority of the time. — OpinionsMatter

Indeed. Just today I saw a guy riding in a narrow bike lane while hundreds of total strangers raced by at 60mph just a few away. Now THAT is faith!

S is 30 I think. — Baden

On topics of such scale 30 is an ok excuse too. Nobody is born knowing such things, it takes time for some of this to sink in.

I genuinely think the main problem is less that America is insane for voting for Trump but rather that between Hillary, Cruz, Sanders and Trump, you're really screwed no matter who you choose. — Judaka

Personally, I don't think Sanders was a complete disaster, though I would agree he has weaknesses as a candidate, mostly his angry all the time personality.

As example, Sanders suggested we provide free college for all, paid for my the super rich. You know, it's the 21st century, a high school education doesn't cut it anymore. This was a wise policy that would have benefited many and hurt no one. The super rich wouldn't miss the money.

We might observe how most of the Democratic candidates are now scrambling to claim at least some segment of Sander's vision as their own. He's been talking about these things for decades when no one would listen. He never changed his tune to cater to the fads of the moment.

Anyway, not a perfect candidate, but surely not a disaster.

I'm intelligent enough not to make the unwarranted logical leap which they do. — S

No. You're not. You believe in the infinite power of human reason with the same blind faith with which many religious people believe in their holy books. In fact, your faith is stronger, because you don't even understand that it's faith.

You're not interested in reason, but in ideology, and don't actually understand the difference between the two.

But, you're probably 23, and that's a good excuse. Seriously, it is.

IMO - these are both good things for the country - If somehow Trump was impeached - it would just make him a martyr to his base. The country needs to defeat Trump in the next election - and show him and the world we have not completely lost our minds as a country. — Rank Amateur

Yea, I vote for this. Trump would excel at playing the martyr role. It would give him a story line to build on for years to come. He'd probably start his own TV network and use the martyr drama to elevate the next Trump.

What concerns me about all the investigations is that if Trump feels trapped he may not give up the office if he loses the election. He may invent some new "emergency" to justify staying. Right now he's largely immune from prosecution, but if he loses the election he could go to jail.

My other concern is that I'm not sure the Dems are capable of putting up a winning candidate. We'll see....

What actually unites mankind?

What we're made of.

I bet you would take at least some offense at this personal attack. — Noah Te Stroete

I often take offense at things people say on forums, but I am not promoting such reactions as a wise strategy.

The logic here is as follows.

If the focus is on changing what other people say, one has billions of people one has to try to control.

If the focus is on how we hear what other people say, one has only one person to try to control.

I'm talking about online, and agree real world is a different situation.

Please cite. It's clocks that run at different rates - "clock" understood very broadly. I'd like to view the proof that time runs at different rates. — tim wood

Google is your friend. I learned this from a science documentary on either Netflix or Amazon, sorry I don't remember which, or the name of the show.

The point is that insofar as we're focusing on what we're referring to in practical, observable, experiential, phenomenal terms, it doesn't follow that (the most likely answer may be that) we have no idea what we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Did you know that time runs at different speeds in different circumstances? Do most forum members know that? Do most citizens know that?

If you answered no to any of these questions, there's your proof that we don't know what we're talking about.

The fact that time runs at different speeds is unlikely to be the last mystery about time to be revealed.

But what do you guys think of what to do with people who offend for the sake of it? — Joseph Walsh

I would suggest two perspectives.

In real face to face life such offense making needs to be limited to prevent violence.

In the online realm, it's better to focus on that which we can control, our reaction to offense. If you insult me online you're actually doing me a favor as you're inviting me to investigate why I resist and resent the insult. If I take up the challenge and understand why I'm offended, I may be able to liberate myself from all insulters.

Why couldn't we simply focus on what we're referring to in "practical," observable, experiential, phenomenal terms? What would be the motivation to posit time being anything different than that? — Terrapin Station

Well, science has done that, and proven that time runs at different speeds in different circumstances.

This information is not particularly practical at human scale, but as we expand the scale (such as is illustrated by GPS satellites) it becomes more of an issue.

When the conversation focuses on universal issues, such as the nature of now, it's not possible anymore to assume the realm of time is fixed as we've long assumed from our perspective at human scale.

It's kind of like the impression we had that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. From human scale at the surface of the Earth this seems a reasonable and practical notion. As we gain more perspective, a different picture emerges.

Given that this is a thread about time it might be useful to reflect on the proven fact that time runs at different speeds, depending on the relationship between the observer and large masses such as planets. As example, GPS satellites have to take the time speed shift between their location and the surface of the Earth in to account or their location data would be worthless.

This time speed difference has never mattered at human scale because the difference in time speed between the top of a mountain and sea level is measured in billionths of a second. Thus, we assume that time flows at a fixed speed, an illusion generated by a very limited perspective.

The point here is that when it comes to all issues concerning time, the most likely answer may be the we have no idea what we're talking about.

Another point of personal fascination is that while we resist death on one level, we embrace it on a daily basis too. Death is woven in to the fabric of life and it is, again, the divisive nature of thought which attempts to separate life and death in to tidy separate conceptual categories.

Consider that most popular of all pursuits, the orgasm. The essence of the orgasm is a fleeting moment of psychological death. Yes, everything leading up to and following the orgasm tends to be quite "me" oriented. But not the orgasm itself. During those few moments the "me" and the illusion of division is blasted out of existence. And we couldn't be happier about it.

Imho, nature, God, or whoever, whatever provides this taste of death as a reward for us doing our job of trying to create new life.

When viewed through the lens of thought life and death appear to be two different things, because thought imposes this pattern on everything it observes. But in reality, it seems to me that life and death are just two different words we've invented to described a single process.

Excellent post, well done sir.

I agree there are deep largely unseen currents in the human soul that manifest themselves on the surface in a manner that tends to obscure their source. And the evidence does suggest that there doesn't seem to be any philosophy, ideology or religion etc that we can layer on top of this phenomena to cure the ailment.

I doubt this will help, but it's at least interesting to try to understand why we fear death. It won't surprise anyone that I'll claim that the source of this fear is the inherently divisive nature of the medium of thought that we are made of psychologically. Thought imposes the illusion of division on everything we observe, and we thus become one of the "things" that are observed. And a very small thing at that.

Imho, this is why the fear of death (and all that flows from it) is never cured by any of the techniques we throw at the problem. This is why the fear of death and the illusion of division it arises from are universal in all cultural circumstances. The illusion of division is built in to the nature of what we're made of. This illusion is not just a bad idea which can be corrected by philosophy.

On the upside, our perception of isolation and vulnerability is just an illusion. And life flies by at incredible speed. Help is on the way, I can almost hear the grim reaper ambulance coming to rescue us. :smile:

How do you tell the difference between the escaped and cleverly adaptive monkeys and your average Florida primate householder? — Bitter Crank

That is the question! Our state went for Trump, so monkeys would likely be an improvement.

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to observe different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it by experimental realisation of what was previously a thought-experiment called ‘Wigner’s Friend’. — Wayfarer

Great thread Wayfarer, thanks for that.

I don't feel qualified to comment on this study in particular, but remain convinced that whatever the true nature of reality might be we've only begun to grasp it. The history of science suggests that the group consensus understanding of reality will likely be overturned in a radical fashion many more times before we're done.

As example, when will science be completed? When will the scientists hold a press conference to announce they've finished their work? Most people I've asked this question to reply, thousands of years or never.

If true, it logically follows that we currently know close to nothing in relation to what can be known, and especially in relation to all properties of reality, including those properties which will never be known.

If true, it logically follows that ignorance is a defining characteristic of the human condition. Thus, the most reasoned question would seem to be, what is our relationship with this ignorance? Intellectual relationship is one level of relationship, but typically a relatively shallow business. The more important question would seem to be, what is our emotional relationship with this state of ignorance.

If you wish to explore it, what makes the sex business and the massage business so different in your mind (if I understand you correctly) in terms of ordered and disordered?

Obviously, there's the legal difference, but that doesn't seem to be your concern, best I can tell.

BTW, I once had a massage license, and my wife has been doing it for a living for over 30 years. Don't worry, you won't insult us no matter your perspective, feel free to speak your mind as you wish. Just sayin, it's not a theory subject for us here.

thanks Jake no shock I would disagree with most, if not all of that. But none of my disagreements have any kind of a real philosophic basis — Rank Amateur

Ok, no problem. I guess to me prostitution is a business transaction, and is thus subject to all the pros and cons of any business transaction. You know, licensed massage therapy (fully legal, no sex) is also a very personal physical service. Is it too automatically disordered, from the Catholic point of view? Anyway, just a perspective to share, not trying to convert you either.

(sorry for the foray into God) — Rank Amateur

For the record, I have no objection to a Catholic discussing God. Everybody else is selling their point of view, I don't see why you should exclude yourself from that.

the one point I would make to you is the nature of ordered or disordered. It is not centered on the item or the action, it is centered on the motivation, on the why, — Rank Amateur

I get ya, that makes sense.

But if you told me that the prostitute in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if the john in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if any other party to the act did not find it truly disordered - than I would say it is not disordered. i just can't see how that is possible. — Rank Amateur

Would you say the same thing about a licensed massage therapist and his or her client?

The answer is yes, this thread is racism. This post is racism too. Any reply anybody may offer to this comment will also be racism. Your dog is racism. My mailbox too. In fact, your shoes ARE DEFINITELY RACISM you heartless bastard!! You should be soooooo ashamed!!!

I would propose that the disordered desires above are causing great suffering - to the women, to the people entrapping/enslaving the women and to all the Robert Krafts that pay the woman. — Rank Amateur

I'm sure we'll all agree that slavery is not about love, but that doesn't automatically equal all money for sex transactions being disordered. That's just a business transaction, and like any business transaction it can be conducted ruthlessly or in love.

I would agree that in the real world there is a great deal of ruthlessness involved in the sex trade. At least part of the problem is that Catholic doctrine over many centuries has resulted in this business being illegal, and thus just as is true in the drug business the illegality boosts profits, and attracts criminals.

As pot become legal in more places, fewer people will need to do business with the drug gangsters because they will be able to buy safe pot at sane prices at the local grocery store. Same with the sex business.

Imho, and apologies for this, Catholic doctrine has long tried to demonize sex because 1) virgin celibate Catholic clergy know nothing about sex and 2) sex is another way to reach for God which competes with the service Catholic clergy are selling.

There are a LOT of lonely people in the world. The Church does a good job of serving many of them, and sex workers do a good job of serving many others. It's not an either/or equation, but rather a variety of ways to reach for the same goal. Just as sex workers can be evil or kind, the same is true of Catholic clergy.

Ordered desires - taking the God part out, are those desires that stated simply increase love, desiring things that increase love in yourself and in others will not cause suffering. — Rank Amateur

The source of suffering is thought. Everything else discussed above in the thread are symptoms of the underlying mechanism. Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts. This process creates the "me" which is experienced as something separate from everything else, a perspective which creates a sense of isolation and thus fear, resulting in a desire to escape this experience. Desire isn't the cause of suffering, but rather a symptom of the isolating experience generated by the divisive nature of thought.

To translate Catholic doctrine in to my own language, ordered desires are a reach for love, and love is an attempt to overcome the experience of division which is at the heart of the human condition. The point of the love teaching is not so much to assist others as it is an invitation to enter in to a process which will help us weaken the illusion of division which is expressed in our experience of "me".

This is why Christianity (and similar teachings) have lasted for thousands of years. It's not that billions of people are so concerned about social order, the largest of questions and such, but because when people experience the giving of love they discover that this experience is in their own self interest, it helps relieve the pain that is being fueled by the illusion of division that thought generates.

Suffering has never been conquered by any ideology or action because it arises from thought, which is not an optional human experience. Thought is not only how we survive in the world, it is literally what we are made of psychologically. The volume of thought can be managed by pretty much anyone, and some experts are able to turn thought off for periods of time, but imho there are no credible reports of anyone being able to totally escape the reality of suffering.

Some level of suffering is the price tag for the power of thought, and so to some degree one just has to accept it, and try to develop a sense of humor about the human condition.

But they don't arise form the same source; just as all examples of thinking don't. Plato is not the same source as Aristotle, and Parmenides is not the same source as Aquinas. — Janus

The writings of all these guys arises from the same source, the human mind, thought. Thought isn't a blank sheet of paper, it's a part of nature and thus has properties which will influence anything made of thought.

But human psychology incorporates not merely thought, but emotion, volition, perception and instinct. — Janus

Emotion, volition, perception and instinct, all made of thought. The philosopher and his philosophies, any philosopher, any philosophy, all made of thought.

All philosophies are examples of thinking — Janus

That is, all philosophies arise from the same source. Thus, it seems good philosophy to investigate the influence of that source given that this influence, whatever it might be, would be universal. Put another way, it seems a more powerful analysis to look at what all philosophies have in common, as compared to looking at how they differ. That's what I mean by "reaching for the bottom line".

All human beings think (I hope) but from that it does not follow that all human beings are "made of thought" — Janus

All human beings are made of thought psychologically. That is, this thing we call "me" is made of thought, and thus will be subject to whatever the properties of thought might be determined to be. Given that such properties would have an effect on all human beings, they seem to merit investigation.

but from that it does not follow that all human beings are "made of thought"; I don't even know what that could mean — Janus

Perhaps that might be because you are working too hard at sophistication? It means only that all the ideas we have in our heads which we reference under the label "me" are made of an electro-chemical information medium called thought. My opinions, my memories, my emotions, my hopes, dreams and plans etc. All made of thought.

beyond a claim that the nature of human beings is mediated by the nature of their thinking. — Janus

By the nature of thought itself, how it operates.

If by "their thinking" you mean their particular opinions and philosophies etc, all that is just a symptom of the underlying mechanism, thought itself.

As example, our bodies being flexible is just a symptom of the fact that our bodies are roughly 50% water. On the surface there is a great deal of variety between bodies, but underneath that surface variety are the universal properties of water.

On the surface there is a great deal of philosophical variety, but underneath that surface variety thought works the same way in all human beings. Thus, to the degree we understand how thought works we understand something fundamental about all human beings. This is more interesting to me than, for example, trying to understand how one ideology differs from another.

How can we (presuppositionlessly) investigate the nature of thought when we must necessarily use thought (which must start from some presupposition or other) to attempt to do so? — Janus

Great question! While not claiming to have a perfect answer, here are some theories we might chew on.

First, thanks to the inherently divisive nature of thought our minds are "multi-threaded". That is, there is the thinker, and the thoughts. The thinker can observe the thoughts, and learn something from that observation.

Second, we aren't limited to using thought only. To some degree we can observe thought from a distance through techniques like mediation, or any process which quiets the mind.

But your point is taken, any investigation which exists in thought will be influenced by the properties of thought, a built-in form of bias which won't be easy to step out of. We are humans, not gods, we muddle along as best we can.

I think your view of philosophy and philosophies, thought and thinking, is overly simplistic. — Janus

Thank you! :smile: Seriously, I seek the bottom line, not complexity for the sake of complexity, the passion of so many philosophers.

Fact: All philosophies are made of thought.

Fact: Psychologically, all human beings are made of thought.

Premise: Given that all philosophers and all philosophies are made of thought, the nature of thought should be the focus of our investigations.

This is too "simplistic" for most "philosophers". Not complex and sophisticated and fancy enough. Not enough ego and career inflation opportunities.

Ok, that's fine, to each their own of course...

But, I don't care. I do what I do, readers find it useful or they don't, their business.