However, it may also be said that the perspective of realism may be too flat, because perception is so bound up with awareness, almost breaking down or calling into question the separation of subject and objects of perception. — Jack Cummins

Too, I think, perception and awareness are essentially integrated with action. In a sense, we only perceive that which we "push up against". Which raises a whole lot more questions about subjects and objects.

DId you know the phrase "perennial philosophy" (the title of that book) came from Leibniz and referred to the fundamental reality underlying our own existence? Just read that in The Intelligence of the Cosmos by Laszlo... :)

ok. well if we're adapting to nature, and there is more to nature than fits in the current scientific worldview, then it wouldn't be so virtuous. Since the history of science is full of paradigm shifts, this would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis. The scientific method has evolved, who is to say that it isn't still evolving? A thousand years from now, our science may be as unrecognizable as alchemy.

The solution to the problem of misusing a tool is to stop misusing the tool ....Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider. — 180 Proof

Reasonable suggestion. But...this also depends on the criteria of what is considerred "adaptive," which to a large extent are enmeshed with the objectives and methods of science. So a bit of a vicious circularity there.

Seriously though. Even if so-called mystics are reasoning in a domain of ambiguities and uncertainties, the values they espouse are concrete and practical. Such that mankind most likely would be better off having adopted them. One wonders if the underlying motivation of the advocates of the ordinary is just that they have not yet evolved to the point where they are capable of embracing the ethics of the extraordinary.

Eg. Eating a sandwich is pretty ordinary. But if you think of everything that goes into the making of a sandwhich, and then went into the making of you, its quite extraordinary. — Yohan

Depends what you eat before you eat the sandwich... :lol:

Everything is a miracle; each thing is not. — 180 Proof

:chin:

Can't ideas be stolen from forums? — TiredThinker

I would say an idea is the one thing that can't ever be truly stolen.

The theme of this thread is pretty much addressed by the book I'm currently reading, The Intelligence of the Cosmos, by Ervin Laszlo, a pioneer in the field of systems philosophy. More and more it occurs to me that complex arguments and architectonics cannot create agreement, except where some fundamental mutuality of perspective already exists. Instead, I think what can be compelling are lucid and concise observations that encapsulate contrasts and highlights. Laszlo says, "Einstein remarked that there are two ways to live one's life: as if everything is a miracle, or as if nothing is." I agree. These perspectives are mutually exclusive, and I think people are pulled between or vacillate between the two. I have found that the pursuit of higher meaning is eventually rewarded, which is evidence enough for me.

Well, I happily endorse mysticism within the context of philosophical naturalism. So I would say that philosophy can encompass mysticism. However I feel that philosophers of the material-reductionist variety would reject this. For me, mysticism is on par with ethics when it comes to being a philosophically valid field of inquiry.

I would assume anyone who authentically asks whether mysticism has a valid role must have had at least one experience that qualifies as mystical. So are you asking this question from a mystico-friendly perspective?

The Intelligence of the Cosmos: Why Are We Here? New Answers from the Frontiers of Science
by Ervin Laszlo

No I don't see it that way at all. Each of us has his own truths which consider them as undeniable. I don't see any harm at sharing them with others. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I understood this to be the entire point of your OP. For me, what you are describing as absolute truths translates to "fundamental beliefs". Collingwood calls them absolute presuppositions. Whatever the name, those things which are essential to one's being. I personally think that such constitute the very fabric of what we mean by consciousness (which I guess would be "the" fundamental belief for me). Consciousness is what it commits to believing. I have always called this the "ontological gamble," we stake our existence on the veracity of what we choose to believe.

At most Descartes' "cogito" presupposes existence; — 180 Proof

How can you presuppose existence? What presupposes must exist or it could not presuppose. It is more of a transcendental condition, don't you think?

edit: It is more like a syllogism with the major term omitted. That which thinks exists. Not so much a presupposition as an instantiation. Like a truth-functional truth. If x is red then x is coloured. If I think, I must be.

I'm, not trying to be a dick but I don't understand this either. What is a dialogue with the universe? And how is it a feedback loop? :smile: — Tom Storm

Well, if you receive data (which for you is "evidence") as an input, which is generated as a function of your actions, then that is a feedback loop. You know, cybernetics, systems theory, neural networks, all of that good stuff.

What does this mean? — Tom Storm

That I am in a dialog with the universe by way evidence, I guess would be one way of characterizing it.

Yet still though isn't an evidence for its universal feedback role. — dimosthenis9

See, and I thought that is exactly what my statement describes.

have thought about that too and it's my "secret hope" but I have to be honest with myself and admit that there isn't any evidence at all for that. — dimosthenis9

If there is "evidence" for anything (i.e. evidence has a cognitive and empirical value) then evidence is evidence of the naturalistic role of consciousness....

I mean in the context of a comprehensive naturalism. Consciousness is part of a universal feedback system. The effects of your choices are real.

I would like to hear the facts/things/ideas/rules(name it whatever you want) that you think that apply in universe/cosmos and that we (as humans) can be sure about them. — dimosthenis9

What you do matters.

Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World
by Maryanne Wolf

Whether digital technologies may be impacting our capacity for critical thinking.

↪Pantagruel Collectivism may have some merit at the local level, where people cooperate voluntarily and the ties that group them together are tangible.

However, the larger the scope becomes, the more abstract these supposed ties become, the more imaginary (that is to say, non-existent) the group, the more it must rely on coercion and generally the more problematic the results become. — Tzeentch

So the problem may only be that people lose sight of what is in their common best interest when group size exceeds Dunbar's number. If there can be an organic solidarity in smaller groups then perhaps better education is the key to establishing a more enlightened kind of organic solidarity in larger. Arguably the ruling class presents a unified front under the powerful motivation of maintaining advantage. Whereas the proletariat is united by exploitation, which is more of an external force than an internal motivation. Which helps to explain why mobilization of the working class is more difficult: its members fail to recognize their own solidarity.

There is a lot to be said about it, but one thing is for certain in my mind: the existence of a “collective” can be seriously questioned. It’s abstract, amorphous, mind-dependant, something like a “natural kind”—a “political kind”. Utilizing it as a subject of evaluation focuses value inwards rather than in a direction that would benefit actual flesh-and-blood people. When it comes to the question “what is more natural”, valuing others above our own ideas seems to me more natural — NOS4A2

I'm sure you're not disputing the existence of groups, so I gather you are disputing the existence of an internal or organic solidarity versus an external unity?

I recently read a book that extensively discussed consciousness in the context of brain injuries. In certain types of hemispherical injuries, a person will be unaware of an object with senses tied to the damaged hemisphere, but accurately aware of the object with senses tied to the other. There is the phrase "to be of two minds." There is also a book called "The origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" that discusses the role of the corpus callosum in communicating between and uniting the left and right hemispheres.

So, I would have to say pretty conclusively that the mind is a complex entity, i.e. composed of multiple components. And the evidence suggests that it is, in some sense, divisible.

Thank you. Temperamentally I am not predisposed to collectivism. I've come to it as a rational, pragmatic, and naturalistic recognition.

Collectivism could be said to have its origins in the more primitive state of "communalism" (not communism) typical of societies predating the more modern forms. The concept of societies governed by integrative versus associative bonds is subject of the classical sociological distinction between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Since modern society is increasingly characterized by its pluralistic nature, the decline of integrative communalism is not surprising. However this does not mean that it is not still a valid or realistic goal, perhaps attainable under a more enlightened program of global education.

It’s difficult to find a favorable quote about collectivism, — NOS4A2

No bias there

The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling
by Henry Fielding

Lectures on Ideology and Utopia
by Paul Ricoeur

Jonathan Wild
by Henry Fielding

Given sufficient inflation, the cost of everything goes up. Including the costs of businesses that collapse and life-savings that are lost.

Yes, even income goes up. Unfortunately, it doesn't keep pace with the costs of everything else......

Destra e sinistra (Right and Left) by Norberto Bobbio. — javi2541997

Thank you! This does appear to be relevant to my objectives..... :)

Gracias!

I'm starting with David Held's Models of Democracy, but I'm still hoping for something more specific....

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
~William Munny, in Unforgiven

It isn't about what you do or don't deserve, it is about what you do or don't do.

So, Biden wants Trump to destroy it? I hope that is not his strategy. — Jackson

The people - the democratic system - have put the institutions in place already. Whatever damage has been done has been done to the fabric of the culture. It is the picture of the corruption of the human spirit. The American Dream has become the American Nightmare.

I am confused as to why Biden allows Trump to subvert our democracy. — Jackson

I think the democracy is already subverted. It is a losing battle at this point.

I'm currently reading Rawls' Political Liberalism, which goes to great lengths to describe how the notion of justice as fairness emerges as a result of the healthy pluralism that is the result of a well-functioning society and a reasonable interchange between competing reasonable doctrines. What I see in the US aligns with none of that.

I no longer have any respect for the United States as any kind of reasonable constitutional democracy. It is horrific; I am horrified.

Political Liberalism
by John Rawls

Hopefully this will counteract the vile taste of the current debacle of Roe v. Wade in the US.

I was absolutely mesmerized by Hardy's last novel, so I'll also now be reading his first:

Desperate Remedies
by Thomas Hardy

But how do you plan to do that if you can't even know for sure if it's there or not? At a given moment for a given opinion, we have no tools to detect it... — Skalidris

We have the catalog of known cognitive biases. That's a pretty good tool IMO.

With experiments, we can conclude a lot of people have cognitive bias (or whatever you want to call it actually), but that doesn't mean that we have tools to measure it quantitively in someone at a given moment. You have no way of measuring how much someone's opinion is biased. What did you have in mind? That we have some kind of cognitive bias detector that tells you how biased you are? — Skalidris

I never proposed that we should construct a scale. Essentially, a bias is a distortion, so whatever the degree of the distortion, remediating it (by whatever amount) is better than not, don't you think?