In a pragmatic sense, one has to combat doubt with certainty in order to act.

It seems we agree that metaphysics does not have the special place in philosophy ascribed to it by — Banno

Again, it really all boils down to a definition of metaphysics. Apokrisis sees the metaphysical implications of physics and so do I. Popper advocates metaphysical research programs to guide future scientific research. It seems that some people are prone to interpret the term metaphysics in order to exclude rather than embrace it.

My one liner is that the universe can exist because it is falling into its own heat sink. — apokrisis

:up:

Stability emerges by the suppression of instability. — apokrisis

I concur with everything said, but the emergence of complex adaptive systems (and negentropy in general) is still something of a mystery. I wonder if instability is somehow being captured at the systemic level as a kind of 'power source'?

So, I am asking about how much is certain and uncertain in life experiences and knowledge? — Jack Cummins

We have all met people who make certainty a way of life, sometimes very successfully. The fact that this is possible says something about the nature of the reality which we inhabit.

So, I would like to know whay are you doing all that, which rrequires an enormous and never-ending work. A Sisyphian task! — Alkis Piskas

I guess life itself is a Sisyphian task if you look at it like that....broadly speaking, the relationship between subjectivity, the evolution of understanding, and objectivity. And how that should be construed, as you point out, in the context of life.

But anyway, the is/ought thing is what humans find useful to hold true so as to make explicit the freedoms that are available because the Universe has no reason to care. But at the metaphysical level, or at least the natural philosophy branch of metaphysics, we engage with the finality that the Universe actually does embody. — apokrisis

I find your descriptions apt, but your characterization of freedom as that about which the universe does not care confuses me. Couldn't these localized expressions of freedom be part of the universal telos? Also, contexts (of freedom and law) are themselves the products of other contexts, in a nested-hierarchical fashion. It seems that freedom is something that emerges and is defined (ie. law-constrained freedom or practical freedom) through this emergent-evolutionary process.

What must reason exclude from conceiving reality as such – what is necessarily not real? — 180 Proof

The ideal as a goal is in a sense not-real though, isn't it? Fichte has an interesting approach, contrasting the "being" of the extant with the "becoming" which is characteristic of the self-positing I.

And to be able to think about reality in that fashion surely takes metaphysics to new places. — apokrisis

And if you are able to think about physics in that fashion then I surely agree.

But besides that, what's the point of metaphysics if it doesn't make a difference to what you do? Metaphysics is in the end only a tool for doing ethics. — Banno

Similarly, I feel that my pursuit of abstract ideals resonates with my actual behaviours, and vice versa. — Pantagruel

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what I just said.

I assume by illformed you meant not how you would say it. No need to be ill-mannered. ;)

A very helpful idea I encountered around 30 years ago was from Albert Ellis, a psychologist, influenced by the Stoics. He said - "You have considerable power to construct self-helping thoughts, feelings and actions as well as to construct self-defeating behaviors. You have the ability, if you use it, to choose healthy instead of unhealthy thinking, feeling and acting.” That idea changed how I deal with others and how I deal with any information I come upon. — Tom Storm

Similarly, I feel that my pursuit of abstract ideals resonates with my actual behaviours, and vice versa.

I am curious how that actually looks outside of abstractions. — Tom Storm

It isn't an abstraction at all, is it? It's easy enough to talk about concrete goals, but the whole issue is to what extent are idealizations susceptible of concrete realization? Do we limit our objectives based upon the availability of material means? Or do we aim to synthesize something novel? Whatever the case, it is something that we constantly do, to whatever extent we are consciously aware of it.

And have they opened up? Can you share an example? — Tom Storm

It is about conceptualizing a goal-state, which is I think what we are talking about when we discuss the nature of the philosophical project. That is the current topic of the section I'm reading also. For me, that's a good example of re-integrating philosophical practice.

I mean, life is just layers of experience. I see books as concentrated condensations of experience. I feel like by building up more and more contexts of understanding, new types of possibilities will open up. After all, our understanding can only advance along the lines of our conceptualized goals.

:ok:

This approach is not necessarily super-natural, but it is Holistic (another four letter word for those who fear thinking outside Pandora's box). — Gnomon

:up:

Systems-centric is another way to characterize it: holism is one of the key characteristics of complex emergent systems. In this guise, it can form the focus of a legitimate paradigm shift, rather than just being a dirty word. :rofl:

It struck me recently that the philosophical project, at least my philosophical project, is about awareness. Western philosophy focuses more on awareness of intellectual process and reason while eastern philosophies take on a broader range. As Socrates is supposed to have said, it's all about examining our lives.

I think that's an idiosyncratic view, but I don't really see it being in conflict with the one you've described. — T Clark

:100:

To me, awareness is the reward, result, or payoff. And there are other paths to awareness than the philosophical project; which I think has the feature or benefit that it strives for clarity and communicability. Perhaps the significance is that it is a kind of "objectification."

So Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others all have plenty of stuff that needs correction and amplification, in my view. To start from zero is possible, but it ignores a large part of what's important in this Western tradition, which is a continued dialogue with its figures, even if it's only one of them. — Manuel

Yes, I have in mind a rediscovery of the wonder that these thinkers experienced in their own time, realizing that, fundamentally, that the starry skies above and the moral law within are still that.

science cannot tell us what we want to know regarding the absolute primacy of human thought. — Mww

:up:

From my perspective, you are missing something. Think about it. What distinguishes a trivial unknown from a magnificent unknown? It is not within the phenomena themselves, it is in the knowing of the phenomena. So the significance of a mystery lies in the knowing of it; knowing is the significance.

Practical Philosophy. I read The Ethics in Uni, I'll reread more after Deleuze's short book.

↪Pantagruel For me, it's Spinoza's dissolution of the MBP with property dualism. — 180 Proof

:up:
Yes, I have been preparing to revisit Spinoza with a more mature understanding than a simple undergrad. I just bought Deleuze's book as a bit of a reintroduction.

I think we have good reasons to believe that matter thinks, so there isn't a mind-body problem. — Manuel

:up:

Ervin Laszlo's theory of "biperspectivism" is the most intuitive solution to the mind-body antinomy that I have read.

To our best current knowledge, unique.

↪apokrisis Out of interest, what do you think are reasonable speculations in relation to QM? Do you think it can point to idealism? — Tom Storm

I think there are varieties of idealism that cogently complement QM. Critical Idealism, in particular, does not assert the primacy of either the mental or the material, but holds that what is fundamental is the reciprocal interaction of the mental and the material. This is difficult to deny, since it is never possible to isolate a fact from a knower.

Does owning possessions make us satisfied? Or does it make us want more?

I think we need to differentiate between needs and wants. Owning things you need in order to survive is necessary; as such, this type of ownership prevents stresses which might make you unhappy. Acquiring something that you desire is, of course, initially a good feeling. But does continued ownership after acquisition supply the same level of gratification? We bought a really nice 6 person inflatable boat after we moved near the beach and really enjoyed using it a few times that year. Next year we used it once. This year we didn't use it at all. So rather than being satisfied, I am feeling kind of dissatisfied with that possession. Really I am dissatisfied with myself for not using it, or for not knowing better.

Frequently, it isn't the owning but the acquiring that creates satisfaction. That can become a vicious circle.

Thanks. Are you able to make any sense of it? — Yohan

Some sections flow really well, others are really, really dense. You pretty much have to just read through and wait for cumulative clarity there. I'm try to push through it fairly steadily for that reason.

What are you reading? — Yohan

Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy by J.G. Fichte. It basically picks up where Kant left off.

And what happens when the subject makes itself the thing that's under examination? — Yohan

An extremely complex question. It is right at the heart of Fichte's philosophy of critical idealism (the subject-object) and can't be summed up in a few paragraphs. So far, it has involved a lot of descriptions relating the intuiting faculty to concepts and concepts to objects, the relationship between the act of self-positing, pure and practical action, consciousness qua intellect. If you really want to explore that, the book I'm currently reading is all about it.

To me, it smacks of Popper's three worlds, which likewise bridges the poles of the subject-object spectrum.

How do we develop our conciousness and self-awareness?

My first thought is that the inquiry itself is a helpful place to begin exploring.
— Universal Student

My first thought is that I don't know.

My second thought is the same.

And no matter how I try, all my thoughts result in the same conclusion as the first two. — god must be atheist

Self awareness is a skill, just like any other. It is developed through practice. Everything boils down the ability to discriminate and differentiate the subjective from the objective in experience. Because even the "objective" is, for the human mind, a representation of the objective. Consider that objective means both that which is (thought to be) mind-independent and also the state of being independent of subjective predispositions or bias. The Husserlian phenomenological reduction presupposes an accurate self-awareness. The practice of good science requires achieving objectivity.

So yes, the inquiry is itself a helpful place to begin exploring.

I know you’re not anti-science…which is why I question the term “post-science.” If science doesn’t cause these problems any more than philosophy, why single it out as opposed to “post-philosophy”? — GLEN willows

That's true, it was an adoption of the given schema. The problem is really one of abuse and worship of technology. But then, conflation of technology and science is another current problem. There is a better term I'm sure.

Obviously, science isn’t responsible for these things, — GLEN willows

Obvioiusly not. But then again, science is not a way of living either. Which was kind of the point.

Well, the scientific attitude you describe corresponds I think to a post-Enlightenment positivism, characteristic of a nineteenth century "faith in progress" mentality. The kind of mentality that is emerging (I hope) is one based on a more robust scientific understanding that replaces the ideal of technological progress with a systems-centric concept of health. It is still science-based, but it is a more mature kind of science that isn't blindly anthropocentric. That would be the general direction in which I would characterize it.

edit: Your characterizations of pluralism and economic health, for example, are not truly realized in the scientific weltanschauung, but are consistent with the emerging post-scientific ideals.

It's a great concept. One thing though. SInce we are currently not progressing towards a better future (misuse of technology is destroying the biosphere which is essential for human life, social and economic inequality is increasing, not improving), should there also be a "Post-Scientific" column representing an even more mature stage of development that some people already embrace?

:up:

Part of the problem is that the OP didn't really indicate what particular obstacles to self-awareness he/she was facing, only a vague and abstract desire to increase self-awareness.

In that context, I would say that becoming aware that the mind in its natural state is a creature of habit is the best starting point. Invariably, it is our own habitualized choices that form the first and biggest barrier to increasing self-awareness. Learning that we have the power to alter ourselves, even to choose something completely contradictory to what we take as our own inclinations (Sartre), is the beginning of awareness.

It's like anything, caveat emptor. Learning that one has an epistemic responsibility is certainly key to self-awareness! Perhaps, for some, the way to genuine self-awareness leads through the valley of shams.

Witness all the obtuse and self-serving wankers who embrace self-development and awareness workshops in the New Age movement. — Tom Storm

It sounds to me like you are referring to people who are trying to exploit other people who have a genuine belief, which isn't really an indictment of self-development as a genuine goal or a belief.

Also, I do think setting yourself a task of self-awareness is pointless. — Tom Storm

Fortunately a great many people don't share this unfortunate view.

"Anyone who says it is impossible to obtain this says no more than it is impossible for him personally to obtain it" ~Fichte

My second thought is to determine a basic foundation of what we are dealing with. What is consciousness? What is self-awareness? — Universal Student

If you are interested in cultivating an awareness of awareness then Idealism is a logical avenue.

Currently I'm reading Fichte, whose central concept is the self-positing of the I. For me, this really seems an extension and elaboration of "cogito ergo sum," which might be called the original intellectual intuition since it incorporates Fichte's notion of an original action (of positing) which precedes the consciousness thereof.

I find that, at its best, his philosophy reads somewhat like Patanjali's yoga sutras, which are meditative reflections-cum-exercises on the nature of thought. viz: "the act of pure reflection, viewed as a concept, is thought of by the I."

Simultaneously an exploration of the relationship between acting and conceptual knowledge, and where the thought of a concept becomes the concept of thought, becomes thought.

Various recent technological leaps has allowed us to have pretty much access any useful data or information to aid our decision making almost instantly.

At what point does information overload hinder our decision making? — Deus

At the point where it makes it harder, and not easier, to determine what is "useful data"....