I think it is simply a question of through what lens we are looking at any particular phenomenon. Phenomenologically there is no distinction, yet in empirical science there is.

Nor would there be a God. We would just be left saying things are as they are.

So, if I doubt a pen is in front of me, I have to doubt all that I previously knew of pens, the current pen I see, and the future pen that I have grown accustomed to seeing over time. I can't just say I question the pen's existence in the here and now and that be the radical and complete doubt Descartes is looking for. — Hanover

Yeah, probably. Tedious though. If we pull the rug out from under our feet things get weird; or we ignore the effects!

On the Kant intuition issue, I don't think Sartre was suggesting that we must doubt time if we want to be radical skeptics. I think he was saying we must doubt an object in all phases of time: past, present, and future. The pen never was, is not, and never will be. I don't think he's suggesting we doubt our Kantian intuitions. — Hanover

I believe my remark is more or less a reflection of Descartes. We can "doubt" therefore. If we cannot, there-not.

I believe Sartre's 'radical scepticism' is more or less constructed alongside 'radical freedom'. I would assume so? I have his book under a pile of other books and although I am tempted to move them I am resisting :) Anyway, my guess would be because we are self creating all that we are comes into question - hence 'radical scpeticism'. I have no idea if this is either a good or correct interpretation of his view, just an educated guess.

@Moliere care to chime in? Save me reading ;)

I don't think we rely upon the cogito, exactly. This isn't really a pragmatic question. — Moliere

Well, given that Sartre is talking about radical doubt as being given to us only through time reference (something like Kant's intuitions I feel) there is nothing other to hang experience off of is there?

'Rely' is probably the sticky word here. Sartre likes to make words less like words.

,,

Must the cogito rely upon a notion of the past and future in order for its doubt to make sense? — Moliere

To doubt is to doubt. It is somewhat contrary to suggest we 'rely on' doubt. What cannot be questioned cannot be appreciated. That is all there is too it.

I sit with well founded and researched information. I listen and read plenty of weird ideas too. They do sometimes possess an element of truth but I am not that easily taken in by grandiose flights of fancy because they happen to sound appealing or rebellious.

It sounds like that Dunbar Number is consistent with my guess about the role of religion in forming larger societies. I don't think I had heard of him before, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that other smart people thought of ideas before I did. — Brendan Golledge

Honestly, it has been a common assumption for a long long time. The difference with Dunbar is he actually provides some form of hard evidence to back this theory up. Like practically anything, there is often more than one valid reason.

I think the need for religion in the terms Dunbar relates it is no longer massively significant as we have reformed our sense of identity into other forms - patriotism being the most significant. There is also the effect of education and science on how people relate to each other too, which has undoubtedly led to people accepting different points of view more readily than before.

It is true that I look at things from the perspective of Abrahamic religions, but I don't think the main idea that religions can evolve is wrong if there are some religions that don't originate in the idea of sky father. — Brendan Golledge

Of course. The title of Dunbar's book should make it blatantly obvious that this is a common query in the field. Some dispute it and other do not. Nothing new there either. Opinions and theories are held to more rigorously than others. Dunbar's evidence is by no means case closing.

There is cognitive archaeology. Of course this is a rather loose field of study and extrapolating skull shapes to cognitive ability is a bit iffy to say the least (one reason I am a little dubious about some of the stretches Dunbar makes regarding language development).

Do they? Can you be sure that the objectives of military intervention are what is disclosed publicly?

So, since religion is common amongst humans, it must serve some beneficial purpose, or else people would either quit believing in it, or the believers would die out. — Brendan Golledge

It has propagated through time. There is nothing more to take away and certainly no indication that any evolutionary process (literally or as an analogy) is 'beneficial'.

That aside, there are numerous issues with how you are framing the term 'religious' as a purely Abrahamic monolith. There are plenty of instances of religions that are far far less concerned with deities and some not at all. It is too easy to start in one's own back garden and assume it maps onto everyone else's back garden so easily (if they possess one at all!).

One extremely common feature of religion is that they involve rituals and methods that actively induce altered states of consciousness. This is quite clearly prevalent and universal, with methodologies replicated all over the globe independently of each other.

I have recently started reading Robin Dunbar's How Religion Evolved: And Why it Endures, I think it would be right up your street.

One major feature of his ideas are attached to the Dunbar Number, which shows how prior to the occurrence of religious institutions populations of tribes would inevitably reach a maximum before dividing into smaller groups. His premise being that religions have allowed us to create a greater sense of community beyond our natural social capacities.

He does touch on other areas too. Anyway, I would suggest taking a look if you can :)

The Memory Code is by Lynne Kelly too btw if you did not realise that.

Funnily enough, if you are reading the Iliad you can probably see how it was originally a story passed down via oral tradition. If you get that presocratic book I mentioned you will also notice how many of the presocratics shifted form more oral traditions based on mythology to more modern conceptions of philosophical discourse (Thales), and others not mentioned in the book extensively such as Pherecydes, Xenophanes and Hermotimus.

I quick review of Memory Theatre a novella by Simon Critchley

Have you ever had a mystical experience?

Ask someone living on the fringes of modern society who have no schedules dictated by clocks if they fear death or judgment after death. Or look into anthropological studies of such things.

If you only have the people around you to pass such judgments widen your circle to include those who have no concern for the day-to-day living of modernity. I suggest you seek out those on the fringes of the human urban empires.

I do not own a phone.

Do that. Problem solved.

Everywhere I look I see zombies wondering around chained to their phones. It is scary! Sometimes I feel like I am the only normal person in a never ending freak show.

Future generations will either cope or not. I think a large swathe of the modern population has already been lost due to the misuse of mobile devices. They should be banned for anyone under 18 imo. The AI issue is secondary.

The clock is ticking... — Tom Storm

And some societies have less regard for time measuring than others. Herein lies the issue of mortality. We are only concerned with mortality if we are concerned with time.

Pretty basic. I honestly think it is better to read The Memory Code to understand the power of mnemonics and the traditions in non-literate societies - especially if you are interested in the development of civilization and how knowledge has been passed down over the millennia. Especially interesting if you are interested in the origins of religion too!

The Yates one is fairly dry. Bruno is hard to read too. If you read what I suggested first it will either give your the fortitude to read the others or not. Yates was more interested in the history of occultism so it is more or less a historical account of the different systems employed and there relations to more esoteric uses.

Recently, Lynne Kelly's work. In the past, Francis Yates' work on Giordano Bruno, The Art of Memory. The former is a decent practical and modern investigation, whilst the latter is a raw scholarly work. Have also browsed through translations of Bruno's Statues.

I have been reading a very good source book for Presocratics. It is a good reference. The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and the Sophists, by Robin Waterfield. Probably the most solid resource I have for the presocratics. No nonsense scholarship.

This might be up your street too:
Diogenes Laertius
Lives of Eminent Philosophers
an edited translation
edited and translated by Stephen White

Was written sometime in the 3rfd Century CE. Of course, not exactly accurate but being closer to the actual time period it offers some insights into how these early philosophers were regarded at this time.

What kind of things are you into? Maybe I could suggest one or two to you if you want.

Listen to Bernie. It is that simple. He should be running the party.

Good luck with that :)

An interesting opening post.

I think it is mistaken to assume evolution is 'good'. I get the gist of what you mean, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "evolution"?

There are numerous ways in which this term can be applied and so it is often easy to mistaken one use for another. I think this would be the best place to breakdown into smaller pieces what your interests are and then you will be furnished with the relevant concepts (or perhaps other can assist in providing some for you to adopt or use in opposition to your own views).

GL :)

:lol:

There has to be more to the Mysteries of Eleusis, the longest running and most prominent spiritual tradition in Ancient Greece.2 Unfortunately it was shrouded in secrecy from the very beginning, leaving nothing but hints and clues about what really took place within the holy precinct. Aristotle once said the initiates came to Eleusis not to learn something, but to experience something.

Third paragraph into the book. This is a HUGE misrepresentation. If by the third footnote there are alarm bells (the only one I checked btw) then this is the work of a poor "scholar". I could forgive this but the guy is apparently fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek - there is no excuse for this.

It is basically Wikipedia research.

Hence, Hancock giving foreword is a pretty good indicator that what is about to be read is poorly researched and likely misleading.

Only this:

Aristotle, Fragmenta, ed. Valentini Rose, fr. 15. See also Regis Laurent, An
Introduction to Aristotle’s Metaphysics of Time (Paris: Villegagnons-Plaisance
Editions, 2015), 122: “The initiatory rites push conceptual knowledge into the
background in favour of iconic visions that lead citizens to suspend their
judgments in favour of revelations that need no explanation."

Aristotle says nothing about the Eleusinian Mysteries in fragment 15. He just talks about the nature of divinity/God.

His references are off.

Yes. But it sounds like you're not particularly apt to accept something from this writer. Which is fair. — AmadeusD

Where?

That said, yeah - pretending that his name is somehow an indication of quality is erroneous at best, prejudiced at worst. — AmadeusD

I have strong reasons to believe it would be a waste of time reading that. I have heard him before and cannot imagine sifting through a couple of hundred pages is worthy of my time in the hope of finding one nugget of information.

By all means, tell me if he mentions Aristotle at all?

It is an old idea that has resurfaced due to more interest in psychedelics. Maybe they did or maybe they didn't take drugs. It does not matter a whole lot to me. Clearly they had access to psychedelics, but this doe snot define the purpose of the mysteries.

I am interested in what Aristotle thought about this and whether he took part.

As an aside I am intrigued by what part pomegranates had. Is that mentioned in the 'Immortality Key'?

Those kind of things are not for me unless I have read the whole work beforehand. I might look at it further in a month or two because I will be focusing more onTheory of Mind stuff then.

I have noticed I tend to have a similar mindset to Frank so asked him.

My reaction to all of them.

1. I recall someone saying way back that the truer interpretation of Descartes was "I doubt therefore I am". Intention is merely a means of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. The information gleaned from such actions ripple out dependent upon our temporal attention. A child may have no real intention when throwing a ball other than 'play'. The excess energy/time is basically a kind of freeform 'experimental' moment (play).

Maybe this self is a result of the subject/object, cause/effect structure of thought. To explain a thing is to divide it into parts and then relate the parts. — frank

I think it is more or less a much further reaching aspect than that. I think how we can see chain reactions from a particular instances allows us to delineate some sense of 'self'. If we only think in of and about the moment there is no 'self'.

2.

It's directly known and language is a tool for expressing the (pre-existing) content of this internal realm. — frank

The old issue of what is meant by "language". If you are referring to this kind of here written form rather than something much broader, then no. "Language" is not really about expressing anything much, it is just a vehicle for passing information NOT understanding it.

I think this self might play a role in the emergence of a mechanical, materialistic perspective. The self, once broadcast all over the world as divinities, is now relegated to the nowhere of the psyche. It's either a soul that partakes of holiness, or it's a figment of the imagination, so this is the self of behaviorism. — frank

The preliterate aspects of so-called religious practices are key. It is all about mnemonics and imagination. Literacy helped in many ways and hindered in others.

3. I would just put it that the 'self' is underpinned by the temporal retreat of attention. We drag ourselves around imagined/representational 'landscapes' and when the agent absconds from the 'dragging' we possess self-realisation.

The "self" is then, basically, the experience of the temporally felt gap between loci. Think of memory palaces, flims or novels. They are contained as a whole and understand as a whole rather than as atomised words, sentences, characters, plots or themes. It is felt holistically as much as it is partitioned - yet in relation to - from the whole.

Obviously, a part is a part because we have a relation to the whole. If not we see nothing. Even an absence is a part of the whole because it is perceived as a hole not a whole.

Just read the opening section @frank should I bother continuing? 4 yrs late :D

I will at least read the closing remarks and see if there is anything there.

What translation are you reading? I have just downloaded copy of 2015 Wilder Publications

Presocratics, Philosophy of Religion and Mnemonics.

Several at a time practically always. Some I get through quicker than others though.

My rule is basically to try and read two or three different viewpoints on the same subject at the same time to weigh and value the ideas better, and to guard against instilling biases.

What was your main take away from it other than the style of writing?

Not in every area that really matters. Clearly, as I stated, the weight is on the western side in many degrees. If you are suggesting that Western culture (whatever that may be) is better in EVERY single way that matters I would want to see how you are calculating this?

A combination of elements for other societies around the world could easily be on par or even better.

One such example would be how well other countries around the world have managed to separate religion from state (China and Japan had to create a concept for Religion to talk about monotheistic traditions in the late 19th century). The west is pretty much detached from ancient traditions having had them wiped out by Romans and the Dark Ages. In Australia the culture has survived in spite of the attempts of erasing it during colonization. These are extremely rich and useful traditions that are going to change the face of education in the immediate future.

I am by no means stating that Western culture is anymore destructive or authoritarian than any other. I think it has a lot going for it. I have readily stated that some cultures are better than others. The difficulty is in showing how we can evaluate this in any objective manner.

I created a thread sometime ago regarding the premise of 'better languages' and it was met with equal hostility. Some people are just not willing to talk about such ideas.

I do think European Culture is probably better than US Culture simply because it is not anywhere near as homogenous as US culture. European culture is a patchwork of various traditions and ideas that have rubbed up against each other, and contended with each other (often violently), for millennia.

The biggest issue is defining what is meant by Western Culture and whether or not the term is at all useful.

Is supremacy, nationalism and imperialism necessarily 'bad'. I think not. Empires do good and bad, and possibly the 'good' may simply be a default outcome, rather than a purposeful aim, by constructing infrastructures (physical or abstract) that lead to overall societal goods.

I read it a while ago and only skimmed over it before I did the review. Certain parts I will need to read soon.

@Moliere My (long) rambling review of Byung-Chul Han's The Burnout Society

Bye for now.

I have a rule when someone talks what I consider to be complete nonsense OR is just out to provoke and ignore what is said. You will get no reply from me for 2 months (if you last that long on this forum).

Have fun! Hope you reign in your tone before they kick you out :)

Are western values beyond criticism?
And why is liberalism the arbiter of truth? — Swanty

When and where has this been stated by anyone here?

God prays to me. I just stopped listening ;)