If the use of the words "I" and "have"

were banned from this particular topic we might "have" some hope of at least aspiring towards the truth of the matter.

It is the worship of the "I" and the primal lust towards the 'having' that mires the will into a paralysis of self serving misunderstanding.

Let them go (if you dare) and see what happens?

M

Correct,
but not willfully so.

M

I will keep my eyes peeled for these philosophers.

M

Essence means one can distinguish one thing from another, a stone doesn't think — InternetStranger

Again, you joy in this self love. You are indeed willfully determined not to think and see in the sacred order. Have you not heard of old Philosophy? Such confusion cries for a mature hand to rock the cradle.

Will you have me and all of your fellows follow you into the cave? To "see". and then think that we are thinking? You 'see' you 'think' and then you cannot help yourself, but gorge upon these lovely "one thing from another!" Enjoy them while they last, but keep them to yourself, they twist my bowels, and I try to eat only when I am hungry.

Return to the the chalkboard of philosophy and look again, you might 'see', that 'thought comes' before those simple eyes see any thing at all.

Now you wish to tell me that the stone does not think. It does not think and yet it is part of thought... Oh yes... and that this thought is yours alone, it does not belong to the stone.

Let me help you find your crucifix for this thing with eyes: the 'son of God' .....the maker of thought?

I hear old Zarathustra laughing.

Give me stones before men, they are more enduring, they are more beautiful and they are more thought full.

M

I think what Judge Judy states of teenagers...

"Don't try to tell me anything about teenagers, I have two of them. Let me tell you something about teenagers, when they open their mouths in the morning... the lies form!"

is effectively true for the majority.

M

"How (and why) did human beings come to be able to know so much about how the Universe works?" — Ron Besdansky

It is an interesting question. However it contains the presumption that we humans 'know' a lot about how the Universe works.

I don't think this is really true, and I am not convinced that we have much of an ability to actively know much at all, other than what we are destined to know, and perhaps what we allow ourselves to feel. There are some aspects of human thought; that might well be free to think or feel about how the Universe appears to us, but I think these are poorly understood.

We are limited in our knowledge by our assumptions, these assumptions confine our Universe to a particular form, Cosmology, singularity, bang, evolution, Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Freud, Marx, quantum mechanics, math. All of these coordinates have arisen from relatively simple basic concepts and the 'so much' that we know lies only in the 'evolution' of simple concepts. The complexity of the modern car may be traced to the simple principles of combustion and perhaps the wheel. It is possible to apply an infinity of combinations to the binary of one and zero. Once can write human history in this language, yet the underlying initial concept is rather simple.

I feel that we know relatively little, (as yet nothing of applied practical value) and as yet are simply dealing with the admittedly complex evolution of several simple and universal concepts. We have no more than a handful of apparently fundamental truths out of which our knowledge has evolved, and several fundamental truths are still lacking.

The evolution of reasoned analysis is very much in its infancy, it has ejaculated onto the stage of cosmic evolution in a burst of apparent glory and complexity, however it has yet to be disciplined in any real sense. The evidence for this is obvious in the current state of man's purportedly organised systems, which have arisen out of this so called 'knowing'.

If indeed I know how to tie my shoelaces, I should rightly be expected to complete the task with some precision and efficiency. Mankind's political, philosophical, technical and social systems are neither precise nor efficient, and the state or threat to global ecology would imply that his 'knowledge' of science is not yet a knowledge, but simply an engagement of sorts the early stages of encounter. We may well be aware of shoes and the laces and how they might possibly be tied, but as yet we have no knowledge of the task at hand. Political science is perhaps the best example of knowledge that has recently produced a Trump card.

True 'knowing' is in its infancy and one might ask if we are going to survive it? never mind evolve it into an efficient practicality.

I think old Socrates had the best response to knowledge, when he went looking for a wise man, he concluded the wisest to be the fool, who is at least 'aware' of the infinite basis of his ignorance.


M

Time: an ontological distinction between past present and future.

That is a wonderfully succinct definition of a rather illusive concept. Thank you for it's application.

M

However, if your harmless and vaguely nicompoopish notion of thought, which properly means human experiencein toto, i.e., the human essence, what makes the human peculiar — InternetStranger

Dearest Sancho

If perhaps you had the courage to see that all the giants are merely windmills, you too might squire for a thinking man.

I may tilt at the giant and you may dream of Dulcinia. Bring your dreams and your essences to your actuary in the clouds and see what he makes of them. How are they to be counted? Will he use his grubby fingers, like the shopkeeper adding 'halfpence to the pence and prayer to shivering prayer'?

This 'human essence' of yours is a detritus of your own making, it is the scatology of fools. There is nothing peculiar in the thought of man, dinosaurs did not extinguish themselves by a cancer of their own making.

You must think yourself useful? As useful as the philosopher to the Tyrannosaurus. We speak here of 'suffering', the proud and shameless daughter of your 'human essence'. Make love to her if you wish.

Me thinks your precious Jezebel is a syphilitic whore.

M

:

My mind revolts, yet my heart (that putrid stinking thing) grows fonder of you with every post I read.

You think that men have some dignity in thought. Ah how sad it is that one who does in fact think (despite my initial presumption) should tumble blindly nay, willfully, into the first and deepest pothole. Stay there with Onan, and the deluded, that is where they love to fondle each other with their precious thoughts.

Kindly accept by return this 'dignity', unopened, I smell the poisoned delusion within. The stench of romance, of cowards and small people clings to it. It is the same stench that bleeds upon the air of Cathedrals and shopping malls, infused with eager supplications and pathetic prayers of the worshipers.

There is dignity only in the Crucifixion, and this dignity follows not the thought, but the deed.

M

"You're are not Eugene Ionesco: therefor, you haven't the right. You're a ninth octopus testicle."

I love it!

At last. Ignatius J. Reilly has produced a bit of decent poetry.

I had suspected there was something behind the truculent verbiage.

M

Agreed, and apologies,
my point was a little off topic.
I am always a bit sensitive when capitalism appears to be getting off the hook.

M

The general public is much more prone to be manipulated to be passive and complacent than aggressive and violent I think. — Baden

Whilst I agree with the general assertion here I think it is technically incorrect, in respect of violence.

Consumption particularly by white westerners is an example of an externally influenced or engineered activity.

Most white western consumption in respect of needs beyond the philosophically valid: food warmth sustenance, education etc... are programmed or inculcated into the herd via the psychology of the herd itself and external manipulations of herd psychology vis media and corporate entities.

The consumptive act is an act of great violence and yet the violence, vis the consequence of consumption is not 'owned' by the consumer. Both the consumption, and the avoidance of ownership of the consequence, have been removed from the reality of the consumer by external forces. The violence that is consequenced by consumption is therefore removed by the magic of the contemporary church of capitalism.

Future generations who will inherit the consequence of the consumptive act will doubtless recognize it to have been of a greater violence than any totalitarian regime of the past.

The herd, and those who manipulate the herd are the purest form of real and potential evil.

M

With the additional comment that (in my opinion) the subconscious can be seen, analyzed, directed, and controlled roughly in the same way a horse can be tamed and ridden successfully. It can be done of course. But there is always a possible wild card in the deck. — 0 thru 9

Agreed,

The likelihood of the wild card is dependent (but not entirely so) upon the 'ability' of the trainer and the passions of the horse.

Given that we are possibly in agreement more than disagreement, we must ask is being agreeable more pleasurable than the fire and fury of disagreement?

M

If I may... Dr. Freud would say that there is at least an unconscious influence. — 0 thru 9

Agreed.

Instinctual imperatives for the most part are sub-conscious. However they can be brought to the level of consciousness through endogenous-insight (intelligence), and (or good psychoanalysis) and then be subject to logic and reason. IE independently or with assistance, sub-conscious instinct can be brought to the level of consciousness and subjected to reasoned analysis.

My point is that this process (insight) must occur prior to the possibility of a change in ones opinion or view. When this does not occur it is quite possible that subconscious instinct will direct reason and cause one to cling to irrational or illogical beliefs despite evidence or logic to the contrary.

Sometimes we disagree with people simply because we don't like them or find them to be threatening in some way. Even people as repulsive as Trump have made reasonable statements that my initial 'feeling' is to disagree with simply because they are being made by a very unintelligent man, even fools are sometimes right.

My reasoning is clearly threatening or disliked by some. Rather than ask what is really under threat, the reason itself is attacked from illogical positions. Effectively the reason or the logic of the reasoning is not under siege, but rather deeper instincts (known or unknown) provide the coordinates for the discussion and the positions within the context of the discussion itself.

M

Do you know the paradox of Buridan's Ass? That's what happens when there is no emotion. — Agustino

This is most interesting as the discourse is venturing into or becoming that which is the subject of the discourse itself. Fixed immovable beliefs that have a deeper emotional basis.

We have departed from reason and presently appear to be talking about that which emerges from Buridan's ass.

M

This is wrong. There can be no logic without emotion. — Agustino

This assertion indeed sounds quite emotional.

Computers are entirely logical and yet devoid of emotion, they make lots of decisions every day, upon which we depend. Indeed I make many many 'decisions' that do not have an emotional basis, such as when and where to take a dump, when and what to eat etc.

Please declare what is your emotional relationship with the evacuation of your bowel?

M

Again I agree.

But the human computer (if used correctly) is far superior in many respects to the mechanical or potential quantum mechanical computer.

I think one can make a reasonable judgement upon who is and who is not an 'individual' on the basis of how close their opinions correlate to the process 'logic' and, how much those opinions might correlate to the process 'emotion'.

Emotions represent the expression of instinctual imperative, however 'logic' entails the disciplining of emotion towards the universal goal of instinctual satiety.

Happy people are usually 'individuals' they are either sufficiently intelligent or sufficiently stupid; the former is sometimes open to logical persuasion, whilst the latter is usually not.

M

I agree.

But the question remains: what is the compunction for one to remain "wrapped up" in an idea despite evident logic that offers a fundamental contradiction to the 'cherished premise'. You have supplied more valid 'reasons' but not an explanation.

The universal answer is 'fear' of some particular consequence.

Fear, as an entity is reducible to a potential antagonism towards a particular instinctual imperative.

Therefore the holding of illogical beliefs (despite evidence to the contrary) is a 'fear' based reaction, and as such it is an instinctively (as opposed to a logically) driven behavior.

Fear of death or individual insignificance, may underpin the ludicrous belief in an interventionist God for example.

M

Minimizing law heads humans in the direction of natural instinct, where good and evil disappear. — wellwisher

Good and evil do not 'disappear' in the direction of natural instinct. Instinct ultimately compels us toward happiness. It is not the instinct that is 'wrong' it is our inability to understand and thence control instinct that causes the manifestation of human evil, and the subsequent dilution or disappearance of 'good'.

Instinct is the word of 'God', as it manifests directly out of Nature and there are few who suggest that 'God' or 'Nature' is a source of evil. Humans are the only source of evil.

Evil has only one source and that is human stupidity. Stupidity has only one source and that is a misunderstanding of God/Nature/Instinct.. these are effectively and functionally synonymous.

If God is beautiful then so is instinct.

Instinct, unlike God, has the advantage of existing, and is therefore, perhaps more deserving of reverence and respect. :)


M

So think about your own experience. Have you ever persuaded someone, on say, TPF, to change their worldview? — Agustino

This I think is pretty much impossible (there are rare exceptions) for one major reason. Individual opinion or world-view is rarely affected by another individual, or the alternate thought of an 'individual', precisely because 'individuals' are a rarity.

The capacity for independent thought is not a given. people like to think of themselves as individuals, however individuals form part of a herd and a collective consciousness, and are subject to an instinctual imperative to 'fit in' to belong, to be loved, or to be accepted by, or dominate over, their peers.

Ayn Rand offers an interesting and valid perspective on the notion of 'individuality' in her novel. The Fountainhead. Therein, the character Ellsworth Toohey has much to say on the notion of 'persuasion' and of course, Howard Rorak is the protagonist portrayal of an 'individual' in the truer sense.

As such, the capacity to be persuaded or not, is subservient to the instinctual imperative towards belonging. It is a delightful rarity to encounter 'true individuals' who are in control of their instinctual imperatives and as such are open to persuasion via logic and reason. Oftentimes these 'individuals' are referred to as 'intellectuals', 'philosophers' or 'iconoclasts', but they are all united by the ability to overcome instinctual imperative and function or think as 'individuals'.

M

Suffering might well be described as a 'negative' emotion. In this sense it is absolutely essential to functional existence.

The problem with suffering only arises in the extremes. Suffering is absolutely essential for both learning and survival. Therefore the only type of real suffering is 'needless suffering' or suffering that might reasonably be avoided. Therefore there are two types of suffering.

Suffering that is both necessary and reasonable
Suffering that is both unnecessary and unreasonable

When we apply terms such as needed and reasonable we then need justifications for each, and these may be arrived at through the application of logic and deductive reasoning alone. Out of this intellectual application, a functional morality should arise.

M

It is not my intention to convince anyone ,other than myself. In fact I have yet to thoroughly convince myself of a self. But I'm working on it.

M

To explain the concept of suffering to others, all you need to do is to hurt them. Inflicting hurt upon others is a quintessentially human attribute. We can even do it by doing nothing at all. — Marcus de Brun

For example:

Is that what your post is meant to do, through exposure to its stark ZzzzZzzZz of boorishness? Kudos. — InternetStranger

zx10 EXP z

M

Mine is not an argument it is an observation.

M

There is always soup. :)

There are no things outside of thought.

It is not a question, it is a statement. If you disagree then please share your counter argument?

M

To explain the concept of suffering to others, all you need to do is to hurt them. Inflicting hurt upon others is a quintessentially human attribute. We can even do it by doing nothing at all.

M

[reply="TheMadFool;196150"

But for the rule breakers there would be no rules, and but for the rules there would be no game.

The philosopher is the Antichrist.

M

you are indeed right, I do not 'have' A philosophy. If indeed I exist beyond this notion of a self by which I am presently beguiled, it would be more correct to suggest that Philosophy has 'me'.

Nonetheless, within the context of this ongoing dialogue, and in a semantic sort of way, I would (and do) assert that I have a philosophy. If we apply the caveat that this 'philosophy', declares only a certain manner of discourse; one that is somewhat sublime and deeper than the superficial discourse that is generally applied to: things systems and ideas.

In this sense, l believe I do posses a philosophy of: self, of things, and of certain systems that I have formal knowledge of.

So, the short answer is yes. I do indeed have a philosophy. All that l am uncertain of is the suspicion that l also have a 'self'.

M

Irrationality is as essential to rationality, as night is essential to day.

All rationality begins its life as irrational. Theory, genius, iconoclasm, all represent the maturation of the irrational into the rational. Nature matures out of the irrational randomness of mutation and the subsequent application of natural selection.

Human rationality matures out of and is equally dependent upon the randomness of irrational thought.

Irrationality therefore is the fountainhead of creativity and rationality its temporal limitation.
M

If you are to offer the proposal that, there is some thing that does in fact exist outside of thought, this entirely impossible 'thing' must present itself to you as a thought construct.

You cannot identify or cogitate an entity or a thing, without the application of the very thing you are trying to negate.

There are no things outside of thought.

please state what you think is my stance and why you think it is "unjustified'?

What is it you are asking?

You can have opinions and feelings about the form of reality. But in the approach to truth science has always had a more definitive insight than simple and all too often self serving 'feelings'

I like feelings I have loads but I rarely allow them to dictate over facts.

If and when I do, l must have reasons for doing so.

M

Reality, both mine and yours (assuming that you exist) is entirely dependent upon thought. There is no alternative every thing and non thing is a manifesto of thought

Schopenhauer and others have already proven the absence of 'free will'

The problem is that philosophy and individuals remain afraid to take ownership of the inevitable consequence. For example they might have to give up the cherished notion of the god of heaven and the god of self. Empty refutation of hard determinism will persist as long as the Gods of heaven and self continue to be adored.

Quantum mechanics and special relativity have provided the formal proof but are equally afraid of the consequence.

To put it simply free will necessitates the linear evolution of time. The future cannot be fixed or already in existence because it is created by our free will. However special relativity insists that temporal shift occurs on the basis of relative velocity. This has been conclusively proven experimentally, by placing synchronized clocks upon planes.

If time travel is possible and has been proven possible, if one can effectively travel into the future... The future must pre-exist if one might travel into it. If the future is already in existence there can be no such thing as freedom of the will.

M

Absolutely not offended, but more interested in your Philosophy?

I think philosophy can be a bigger laugh, as ultimately we are trying to figure out if the 'universal joke' is either within us or upon us :)

I am equally unsure, but it does seem that Schopenhauer's 'will' is synonymous with instinct. If this be so then much philosophy is predicated upon an understanding of human instinct.

Lib tard?

What does it matter ...left wing or right wing.. This is a philosophy forum. Truth is the shared objective. Do you find comfort in hiding behind labels? If you have a point ... Then find the courage to make it.
M

Posty

I can only assume that the reference to 'genius' originates from a kind heart that is perhaps like my own, all to infrequently warmed by glimmers of truth. Such glimmers are so rarely encountered that it might well be fair to refer to them as 'genius'.

In which case I return the compliment and doff my cap to your own consistent honesty, which is in itself a rare form of 'pure genius'.

Genius if it exists, must exist as a pure correlate with truth alone. There are many kinds of honest genius. When Newton identified the equation of gravitation, this was 'genius' in as much as it was or is an enduring truth to the point of quantum physics and general relativity. Indeed quantum physics and relativity are an expression of genius, to the point of their inevitable usurpation, by a different truth or different genius. The quality that unites this 'genius' is the ever closer approximation to truth.

There is then, beyond the science and the descriptive genius that is applied to subjective and objective reality, another kind of genius or 'truth'; the truth of the soul, or the inner self (whatever that innerness may be). This type of genius is an honesty of self, and it is the only genius that is worthy of and capable of productive and evolving philosophical dialogue.

One encounters on fora such as this varying degrees of 'self-honesty' and varying degrees of potentiality to strike at truth. The greater the honesty the more productive is the dialogue, and the greater the potential philosophy. After a time, engaged in dialogues such as these, opinions are exposed as not being based upon, nor interested in, philosophical premise or conjecture. Rather such opinions are held and proffered for ulterior and more primitive motivations: self advertisement, intellectual onanism, or simple anger and rage at ones mortality and impotence. It is easy for instinct to dress itself in the attire of Philosophy. Unfortunately time and dialogue must be invested, before the nakedness of the emperor can be exposed.

This discussion is interesting from the perspective of 'self-honesty' alone. The actual basis of the discussion 'the instinctual imperatives behind behaviors' has been abandoned and the Emperor's clothes are now the subject of discourse.

Personally I remain unimpressed with 'muthos' and 'the laws of nomoi'; this spiritual mumbo-jumbo appears to me as a spectacular garment, made of nothing. There is no point here, and no counter-point, there is no philosophy.


I await a logical criticism of my initial post (typed in her majesty's English as opposed to her dress).... and thank you once again for your honesty and kindness.


M