With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity? — Eugen

Blehck...I certainly think it's a possibility, but what would be the point. Insofar as philosophical debate goes (especially here on TPF), the "convincing game" is simply a case of argumentum ad populum. Anyone who possesses truth would understand that a desperate grab for validation of one's beliefs by consensus is masturbation.

Fortunately the "convincing game" is not the only value that philosophical debate has to offer.

As civilization complexifies and progresses, everyone will continue to get more feminine, too. — BraydenS

And eventually, men with superior genetics will be sequestered underground and milked for their semin. Meanwhile on the surface, transgender females will utterly dominate.

Words fail me. — tim wood

Me too buddy, me too.

Why keep the scheme going? Why keep the absurd repetition going to yet another life? I mean, we get the picture.. survival, comfort, entertainment, repeat. But doe we HAVE to keep repeating! — schopenhauer1

You make a great point in this thread. The pessimism is absolutely warranted. But not many will vibe with your position since, I'm willing to bet, many, if not most on TPF, (just as in the world) are already heavily invested and their interests deeply embedded in the scheme. The positive thing I take from all the absurdity: at least I now know with absolute certainty that the present generation is as stupid as I had previously suspected.

What a disgusting person. I am persuaded that the only proper fate for Trump is indictment, arrest, trial - by all means acquit if he's committed no crimes! - conviction, forfeiture of all assets if he has any, and hanging. I believe he is a traitor and that he betrays his country almost hourly. There was a time this country tore itself apart over presidents and generals who lost 50,000 lives in an unnecessary SE Asian war. Now a feckless, vicious, incompetent, self-serving criminal of a president through his lies, racism, greed, immaturity - you name it - will have on his hands the blood of hundreds of thousands of people who died unnecessarily because of his decisions and non-decisions ... The US, on the other hand, is not managing and has not managed. What's the difference? Donald Trump. Got a friend or relative that's sick, dying, or has died. Thank you, Donald Trump. Thank you for destroying our capability in terms of anticipatory planning and action. Thank you for your lies and misdirection. Thank you for your deliberate ignorance. Thank you for making clear to us the citizens of this country that the federal government has no responsibilities and that you personally have no responsibility, but rather it's all states' business. Thank you for corrupting the medical equipment supply chain, channeling it all to profiteers. Thank you for putting your incompetent son-in-law in charge of that behind the other incompetent, Pence. Thank you for making it completely clear that the only thing that matters to you is you. Thank you for firing every responsible and ethical professional career public servant you can get your hands on and replacing them, if you replace them at all, with your ghoulish associates. Thank you for showing us that your utter evil and corruption corrupts and ruins everything it touches. And you know what's worse? 20-odd million Americans voted for you. — tim wood

Stop filibustering, tell us what you really think of Trump

thanks for the reply, and for the link

But none of what you write changes the fact that ideas have been pouring into you for years from others. That you modify, translate, falsely interpret these ideas, reconfigure them, misunderstand them, in addition to taking in reasonably close approximations doesn't change the fact that your mind has been constructed with tremendous input from other minds and this is still going on if you are not isolated from communicating with the others. — Coben

I believe your analysis nails it perfectly on the head in explaining the non-individual.

However, the individual does not need to remove oneself from society, nor avoid human contact in order to isolate, or enter the cave. Don't forget that ideas can be ignored, doubted, rejected or disposed of, and without the least notice of another.

The ideas which I have treated as such (ignored, doubted, rejected or disposed of) stand as the heaviest influence upon my individuality because of my negative relation to them, they effectively imbue me with the ability of resignation - to stand dialectically opposed to the very thing that defines me. Needless to say, it is comfortingly paradoxical, and only something that can be derived from from the philosophical wheel (which is freely available to all), which in turn, I have applied uniquely to myself... And regardless of whether my thoughts are derived externally, my appropriation of these ideas form an intricate complex of internal thought qualities that make up my unique individuality.

we realize all sorts of assumptions we have been making. And we did not choose to make these assumptions. Those assumptions entered us via the culture. — Coben

Once a person discerns the culture (what I prefer to call the generation) from himself, he awakens to individuality. He needs no ideas that originate internally, rather, ideas derived externally through his unique relation to the generation are enough. Through appropriation of thought communications that are universally available to all, he makes them unique to himself, and whether he becomes more or less of an individual is only a matter of how far he cultivates his uniqueness in himself, which is directly related to how capable he is of resigning from the generation.

while criticizing a position of mine I don't really have, — Coben

No offense meant. I was simply being facetious in implying you held that position, I didn't really think you held it. Consider it a bad attempt at a bad joke.

@Coben

Sure, you can go off into a cave and avoid all this....now. But you carry with you the thoughts and tools and heurististics of other minds. — Coben

I'm sorry, it is just not that simple. If a mind seeks to transmit what it thinks to a second mind, this requires communication. Now, perhaps you are thinking that communication serves as some type of preservation chamber in which thought can be housed so that it remains identical to itself as it exits one mind and enters another. But this is not the case, otherwise we would see people agreeing much more with each other.

Communication is dialectic in that there occurs two qualitative turns. The first is the transmogrification of private thought into a communicable medium that can be apprehended by another. The second is when the communication apprehended is appropriated in the other's mind by its abstraction back into (private) thought.

Unfortunately in ordinary everyday communication (the means by which individuals are conditioned by the generation), it is impossible to verify whether a communication accurately expresses a thought, or whether a thought correctly reflects what has been communicated, yet we generally take it for granted that thought and communication have very conducive relation, and we proceed quite confidently with loads of dispute. If such a disconnect in communication separates individual minds that drastically, I can only wonder what gaping divide it might cause between generations.

And yet, you are correct - there are innumerable clones out there comparing and copying each other. As I said: I suspect that there are very few individuals out there. In my opinion, this is insanity. Need evidence, just look at this lame coronavirus hysteria. If philosophy, and being a philosopher can assist me in becoming more of an individual and standing apart from my retarded generation by even the tiniest degree, I would call this sanity, or at least less insane.

immersed in the minds of others. Immersed!. We don't have pure, separate minds. — Coben

Well, I'm more than willing to hear how that works out. I always assumed that telepathy was fiction, and that the thought that I experience is confined to my mind alone. Furthermore, how is it that my mind can exist within the mind of another, and still continue to remain my mind?

And even if we are talking about individual minds relating to each other through a collective experience, I cannot fathom how they could relate to each other directly, say through immersion. Thoughts are private, when one thinks, the actual thinking travels no further than the mind doing the thinking. If one is to express thought externally, it can only be accomplished indirectly, via a medium of communication ... I certainly have a hard time equating thought and communication.

since one has absorbed via culture and language all sorts of philosophical assumptions- if one is lucky. One is more likely to reinvent something vastly less useful than the philosophical wheel. — Coben

And is it not still the individual who does it all, and to the individual for who it is most valuable, regardless whether that one is reinventing the wheel or merely studying the historic tradition? And who else should it be useful to?

It is very evident that the philosophical wheel has proved to be extremely inadequate in cultivating a healthy society at any place or any time, and has gradually mutated into a muddle of nonsense for people like you and I to play with. It is quite obvious that the philosophic tradition has little to no beneficial value for the collective, other than instilling cultish tendencies in the individual. I suspect that there are very few individuals out there, speaking in the strictest sense, and extemporaneously of course.

But I do mostly agree with you.

Individuals may break out of that box. — Coben

I might say, only the individual is capable of breaking out of that box, and philosophy is an essential and invaluable tool for helping one achieve that. I might also add: since it is always the individual that practices philosophy (whether solitary or amongst company) philosophy has its greatest value for the individual.

When it comes to philosophizing with each other, we still philosophize as individuals, and all debate can be simply be regarded as an attempt at validation (of one's views) by consensus. Unfortunately, most philosophy in the present day is argumentum ad populum, and that seems like fun to me.

Yes, and unfortunately the current conditions are looking ripe for an escalation of global conflict such as we have never before witnessed. I doubt that species extinction is likely but radical population reduction is on the cards and much less eventually than one would hope, I think. — Janus

Uh-oh. We might not exist anymore :scream: . Yet, I pity the one who doesn't not exist, what a fuckfest :monkey: .

Your virtuosity at instigation mirrors my own, and I supremely respect that. :cool: :up:

Hi. I agree that other perspectives have merit. I'm not so sure that humans have ever used it as their one and only tool or that they ever could. — g0d

Hey, sorry for the absence, been busy with shit. I have read your previous responses, and we will circle back upon them when the time is right. For now, let me jump in...

Science, or at least its general methodology is definitely the best known tool by which we, as a whole, can obtain a high degree of objective knowledge. But this in no way suggests that objective knowledge is superior to non-objective knowledge, and by that measure, neither can science be declared as the superior method for obtaining knowledge. Knowledge of my self, my life, who I am and where I stand is something that science cannot touch, at least not at the purest levels of subjectivity, and something that I would suspect has been on every true philosopher's mind at one time or another. For me, such subjective knowledge is infinitely important. Nevertheless, science shows excellent results.

Mask is lens. — g0d

Good point. "Character" and "seeing aright" do seem to be quite inseparable.

the ability to believe — Wayfarer

What is belief? How is it?

Whatever the case, belief is most pertinent in relation to the living individual.

Add:

This interpretation can easily adapt the notions of 'will to power' and the 'Dionysian'.

As for N.'s 'death of God' - I think that really means the death of the ability to believe, as man has outgrown the myths and tropes which sustain the belief. But whether or not you believe in God, He is, by definition, not something literally subject to death. (Totally different topics however.) — Wayfarer

That is one of my favorite interpretations. But can you agree that my interpretation holds water, at least a few drops? If nothing, my interpretation is more optimistic than yours, depending on what you reduce 'God' to?

I think Nietschze viewed God anthropomorphically (as opposed to panthiestically), as existing in the individual. And I find this to be an unwitting derivation from Kierkegaard's claim that "God is subject". In this sense, when a man loses faith in his own existence/life (say, by putting his faith in consensual speculation), he loses his personal relation to god. If the personal relation to God is drastically severed (and for Nietschze, everything was drastic), it is the same as if God were dead/killed.

which covers an enormous range of things — Wayfarer

But not all things, and probably not even the biggest or best things. :blush:

So the idea that one could exist in and for oneself alone is, I think, a fantasy. — Wayfarer

I may not have worded it optimally, but I meant that "one can judge in and for one's self alone". The most pious of men are able to entirely divorce themselves from the judgement of other's and confine their judgment to themselves, and also to whatever God relation that self may entail.

(↪Merkwurdichliebe there's 'the reign of quantity'). — Wayfarer

Isn't it ironic that the even the most formulaic quantitative methodologies require a fundamental qualifier, or constant, for any further quantification?

@g0d @Wayfarer

One more thing. If I divorce myself from societal judgement of my character, I become the sole remaining judge. And this is where the death of God concept becomes relevent. God was killed in the slave revolt, when the appeal to human truth and human value superseded and ultimately negated the individual as judge, or g0d, to himself.

This always makes me think of the Ubermensch as a parody of the Christ Pantocrator. :lol:

Heidegger is probably the best example. Diogenes is another, and it was intentional in his case, because it was essential to his philosophy.

Sorry for the delay, but I try to respond to all thoughtful points.

The superman is fascinating. I think of 'Him' as a twisted Christ image. What I take away from Nietzsche is ultimately the presentation /celebration / defense of some classic 'masculine' virtues. Now I love Nietzsche, but I am skeptical about creating one's own values. How do we decide which values to create or keep if not by the values we already have? — g0d

That would be a great topic, and very incendiary: "Masculine virtues contrasted with feminine virtues". I propose g0d or @Janus make the OP. :smirk:

Creating your own values? Your interpretation is very reasonable, and imo, that's the best we can do with Nietzsche. Just for interest, I believe Leopold and Loeb interpreted Nietzsche this way, and tragically integrated it into their own lives.

My interpretation is a little different, but by no means is it better. You brought up the notion of inproving one's own character by 'seeing the world aright'. And in the context of life philosophy, in which objective truth is irrelevant and my life is preeminent, the creation of my own values (in the context of improving my character) is of the utmost priority.

Now, we both know that character (which categorically belongs to the ethical) is not something that can be quantified into scientific understanding, nor into objective knowledge. Character is something that is judged by others (society), yet, individual is where true character exists (or can be found), regardless of the opinion of others (see Diogenes). Only I know my true character in its totality, for everyone else they only possess snapshots of my character. . . I could go on.

Sticking to the point, I interpret Nietzsche as saying (in his own peculiar fashion): that each individual must discover/create the values in his own life and apply them in his living of life. Yet, there is no basis for prescribing correct character, neither through consensus nor scientific knowledge - that is called ideology, and it is a very frightening proposition.

I cannot rely on any ideological formula for correct character, and if I do, I am not determining my own character, I am mimicking what is prescribed by another. If I am to improve my own character, I must take hold of it and adopt the necessary values that will contribute to my personal betterment. The paradox is that I attempt all this as a blind man, with no clue as to what constitutes correctness of character or how it might be attained to. Yet, I am confident that the adopted values that define my character will prevail or fail in life - time will tell.

'The Reign of Quantity?' by Rene Guenon? That's what the title is referring to. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it but it's one of those books that is worth knowing about. — Wayfarer

Never heard of it. Thanks for the lead. And that last line was funny. :lol:

I don't see how thoughtful people can avoid some kind of unofficial and slippery psychology as they try to make sense of the world. At the very least we have to wrestle with ourselves and be on the lookout for rationalization. And we have to model others in order to predict them, make them happy, destroy them if way breaks out. Folk psychology looks central to human life. Status play, etc — g0d

Good point. I think Nietzsche was making the point that folk psychology is historically/geologically embedded in human understanding and natural language, and we all inherit it by birthright. The whole thing with the Ubermensch was to overcome the dominant illusion of folk psychology, and to create your own.

A physicists can be an asshole and his discoveries don't lose value. But some philosophical discoveries seem to be made possible by this or that character. — g0d

I would say if a discovery is valid in itself, it will stand regardless of the character of the physicist or philosopher. Furthermore, I think that many discoveries in both philosophy and physics required a particular character to stumble upon it. I believe Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were known to be quite unique characters.

This is true. But I personally find that turning back into my own depths just led me back out to the wide world. 'I' am only a vessel. The 'I' is the candle and not the flame. This isn't science but a metaphorical framework, a 'spiritual' statement. So it's not I but Christ science, art, and philosophy thru me that matters. — g0d

This has the sound of a life philosopher. I imagine that the one concerned only with systems, would ignore, reject, or ridicule you for writing this. But something like this, which expresses the importance of your own experience in life, may speak volumes for one interestested in self (perhaps in the betterment of character).

A 'true' philosopher takes the impersonal personally. — g0d

A true philosopher see the usefulness of the useless. I think one thing that makes philosophers special is that they are so paradoxical.

We are doing a kind of psychology. So what I take seriously is important information for me as I try to understand the world. I take my own standpoint into the account. Having no standpoint perhaps only means that one has been careless. We have to work through our standpoint perhaps.

And what if 'seeing the world aright' is as much a matter of character as it is of logic? — g0d

Even if the system cannot be effectively put into practice in life, the individual can theoretically relate himself to it, and this kind of groundwork is indeed a kind of psychology. And if we consider psychology to be intermediate between science and life of the subject, then this is probably where systems philosophy and philosophy of life overlap.

And I think seeing the world aright' is as much a matter of character as it is of logic. But logic pertains much more to a scientific understanding, whereas good character, although it might have corollary benefits and be scientifically explicable, it is infinitely important to me and my life, regardless of any honor, repute, or flattering narrative I may receive.

So, yeah, things should pass through intense scrutiny.

But this scrutiny takes different forms. Monkey see, monkey sometimes do. The system in question is not necessarily proved or refuted within language (logically). I suggest that we sometimes adopt what we see as a option, give it a try, and then keep, abandon, or transform it. Agreeing with Popper, I'd say that creativity is at the heart of science and philosophy. So the result is a fire-tested poetry, and that fire can be life as much as logic. — g0d

This is a nice prescription for how philosophy should be practiced. One reason I also like Popper is that his system doesn't seem to elbow out the individual as incidental.

So 'the world sucks' or 'the world is golden' may be informative about the speaker but that's about it. — g0d

Systems philosophy loses the individual in its vast speculation.

This is where we can see the contrast with the philosophy of life. Life philosophy doesn't care about whether or not the speaker's opinions have any relevance to the world. It cares about the speaker himself, and what importance such opinions as: 'the world sucks' or 'the world is golden', have for the speaker himself.

For example you write:

I am serious about my mind/personality and body (actually a unity of course.) — g0d

This has very little relevance to the physical or logical structure of the world, or any philosophical explanation. But for you, in your life, it has great importance.

Life philosophy essentially turns you back upon yourself, and forces you to examine and reflect upon your own life/existence. I might argue that the more exposure one has to the traditions of philosophy, the better the self examination.

Where do you put Popper in this scheme?

I'm not sure what you have in mind, but my initial prejudice is that your 'systems philosophy' sounds more like science than philosophy. I can imagine, however, that making sense of QM would be a good example of what I'm understanding by 'systems philosophy.' — g0d

I like Popper. He seems like an honest philosopher. From my general acquaintance to him, I would call him a systems philosopher.

By "systems philosophy", I mean anything that tries to make sense of the world independent of my existence. The world is the focus, and I am only incidental. What I have to say has little importance, what matters is what can be said that can pass through an immense amount of scrutiny unharmed, and again, it does not matter one lick whether I can actually say it or not.

Word on the street was that my return was still expected by a few here and there. — g0d

You have always been in my heart, even when I sinned. :pray:

as in the naturalist landscape, there is no 'up', there's nothing corresponding to the vertical axis along which something can be judged 'higher' in that sense. That seems to me to be what has dropped out of the modern discourse. — Wayfarer

This can also be framed in the context of the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy. The modern approach has married itself to quantitative understanding, only operating along the horizontal line. One might say such an approach is very one dimensional. But I'm sure everything I've said here will be refuted by calling it "woo".

'Life is about creating yourself' (Bob Dylan). That's one nice frame. Existence is a character building exercise. That's another. Existence is a roller coster ride. As I see it, these are explanations of the world or existence but cognitive approaches. Why is life about creating yourself? Or transcending your small self? Or collecting gold coins? Or becoming famous? — g0d

There is a great contrast between systems philosophy, and philosophy of life. The former depends much more upon scientific understanding, a coupling of hard evidence with hard logic. While the latter is quasi-religious, refocusing all importance directly upon the individual's existence.

Hi, I've always wanted to talk to g0d. :cheer:

I guess others might hate on philosophy because it's just difficult or insufficiently directly practical? — g0d

I think that hit the nail on the head. It seems, any difficult task we humans perform tends to be for the purpose of obtaining some sufficient result, the more direct and practical the better.

The fact that philosophy is very difficult, in a very peculiar way, might give the impression that it yields some very sufficient and directly practical results. Yet, this isn't necessarily the case with most philosophy, as was one of the main criticisms by philosophers like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard: that the "famous wise ones" were constructing these towering edifices, which however astoundingly breathtaking, had no application to life. One analogy: it's like building an enormous skyscraper for all to marvel at, yet which cannot be entered, all the while, living in a shack next door.

Nevertheless for me, it is like you say, it is a beautiful type of thinking that goes for depths. In other words, I like to look at the skyscrapers from my shack, and talk about them with philosophically talented individuals.

I’m inclined to think that life overflows or exceeds the bounds of reason, but that doesn’t make it irrational. — Wayfarer

Perhaps there’s an analogy between the oft-quoted resemblance of genius and madness; they’re alike in being outside the middle of the bell curve of normality, but they’re not the same. — Wayfarer

It seems like from the perspective of human reason, anything exceeding its bounds would appear to be quite similar to what is considered irrational. I assume you use reason to mean the faculty by which I can apprehend something rational.
Maybe you can explain how I am mistaken.

And, this is leading into a deeper philosophical question which is becoming lost in the great understanding of the present age, a much more important question: whether man discovers or creates his knowledge of the world (perhaps the hard question).

@Wayfarer

I have one more concern. How can we confidently assert that propositional logic has some correspondence to life, when we haven't even determined whether or not life is rational? How do we account for the possible irrational aspect which would completely ellude any rational form?

This point always seems to be ignored.

Attaching a face to a first principle puts questioning to sleep. It's familiar. It wins us over in an animal way. But the question isn't answered. Nor is it revealed as a pseudo-question, since it is paired with a pseudo-answer. It's when a person imagines the stucture of any possible answer and sees that that structure is incapable of scratching the itch. — g0d

This is a great description of philosophy. To me it sounds like a lot of fun. I don't get why some people get so hostile and uptight about it, speaking extemporaneously of course.

So I asked ‘do you have any data for “bachelors”? She thinks for a minute and then says “Bachelor - is that a commodity (olive)?’ I realise she is guessing - doesn’t know what a bachelor is, but takes a shot at it. ‘Yes’, I say, just to be mischievous. ‘Good’, comes the reply. ‘I’ll remember’. — Wayfarer

I think I had an identical exchange with some one else here on TPF. :grin:

Yes. I believe that is what those quaint old philosophy types called ‘the mystery of being’. — Wayfarer

What primitive idiots. They don't know the secret to life, like we do in the present age. :razz:

system to conceptualise — Wayfarer

Do you mean it couldn't extrapolate its binary logic into some abstraction of meaning? Go figure?

There is something else going on in natural language than what can be explained in propositional logic. And this has to do with the fact that many of the cleverest philosophers in the present age have found refuge in the sky castles of speculation, and lost sight of what it is to simply live.

At least some if what is required for that is ‘tacit knowledge’ - the kind of background that can only be imparted through culture and language. — Wayfarer

But going even deeper. Is there not something unspeakable about lived experience, something that is unquantifiable, and informal?

Devils’ own job trying to specify it. — Wayfarer

Devil never does, does he?

I think this is unfair to Dennett, who by any account is a serious philosopher even if you disagree with him. Have you actually read Dennett? I know there are some who post on here who despise him even though they have never read his actual works. — Janus

You might be right. I won't argue.

I read him a while ago when studying atheism. I wasn't really impressed, and I felt he was rehashing many old empiricist dilemmas that have been long rendered indisputably repugnant to common sense.

"Subject-hood"...

I suppose one way to tackle it, is to suggest that, whatever this is, it is just precisely what 'eliminative materialists' deny is real. Conversely, its nature is just precisely what those who talk about 'the hard problem' are referring to. — Wayfarer

And what about those who regard it as a particular operation contextualized in some propositional format?