Nope.If you could go, would you go? — BC
Do you fear becoming "overwhelmed" by particular questions or inquiry as such?The worst possibility is to become so burdened by the nature of philosophical problems as to be incapacitated or dysfunctional. At an an extreme point, it would be possible to become so overwhelmed as if one needed answers in order to live. — Jack Cummins
:100: :up: :up:[T]he limits of our knowledge and as such is not a problem, but a demarcation or delimitation. The absolute nature of things is an intractable mystery in one sense, but in another it can simply be seen as a matter of definition: that is that we cannot by mere definition see beyond our perceptions, experience and the judgements that evolve out of those. Anything that we project into that space must be confabulation. — Janus
Have you ever considered the 'left-handed' school, or counter-tradition, of freethinking in philosophy (a wiki link is below)? Once the insight had struck me that "answers" were mosty just questions' way of generating more questions, I finally gave up the "religious" pursuit of "answers" (and stopped titling at windmills!) for philosophizing – reasoning to the best, or most probative, questions – only about what natural beings (encompassed by nature and with limited natural capacities) can learn about nature – and therefore about how to flourish. :fire:... esoteric thought as a way of going beyond literalism. Esotericism was also a way of going beyond the fundamentalism of many other religious ideas [ ... ] focusing on the idea of God, life after death and free will. Such ideas are answered so subjectively because there is no proof. — Jack Cummins
:up: :up:... unreasonable expectations ... As if by asking a question there must then be an answer. — Fooloso4
:up:Metaphysics [ ... ] the question shifts somewhat from what is the nature of the world to: "what is it that can we say, given the creatures we are, about the nature of the world." — Manuel
Oh. You wrote "metaphysics" not "metaphysicians" and, in reference to my post on negative ontology, your response here to my reference to Spinoza Ethics makes even less sense especially since I'm engaged in a "back and forth" with the OP, you (so far) and other readers of this thread.I was thinking more of the back and forth between different metaphysicians over history. — Count Timothy von Icarus
i.e. What does "esoterica" significantly add (or subtract) that "exoterica" is missing in philosophy?Tell me/us why "exoteric" philosophy is not sufficient or in principle, if not practice, fails to do what it sets out to do. — 180 Proof
Those that are "rejected" are ones referred to as impossible and thereby are self-negating; however, whichever "assertions" are not negated, whether they are stated explicitly or not, are "granted" ...Would it be fair though to say that such a project requires positive metaphysical assertions that they might be either rejected or granted a stay of execution? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think, Count, Spinoza's Ethics exemplifies an exception to such a rule (pace Hegel).It seems to me that metaphysics, like other disciplines, must be dialectical.
My jam is negative ontology (i.e. a deductive process of elimination of the impossibie, or ways the world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described), a rationalist near-analogue of negative theology. :smirk:[W]hat is your best description of Metaphysics? — Rob J Kennedy
:up: Or Gretchen Witmer.It would help if he chose another VP this time around. Gavin Newsom, perhaps. — jgill
"Often seen as" by whom? After Kant, Hegel is probably the most influential philosopher in the Continental tradition (e.g. ... Marx ... Sartre ... Habermas ... Žižek...)Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. — Jack Cummins
6Feb24: DENIED by Federal Appeals Court, Washington DC Circuit. The order of the Federal District Court is upheld and affirmed. Criminal Defendent-1 has to appeal to SCOTUS by 12Feb24, otherwise the district court can proceed with the "J6 Conspiracy" trial.:mask: 30Jan24 predictions:
• US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution. — 180 Proof
Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. — Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington DC Federal District Court
I hear some of us are rarer birds than that: thinkers.I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. — Carl Sagan
:nerd: :up:If someone claims to have mathematical knowledge it can be demonstrated. Can the same be said of someone who claims to have mystical knowledge? — Fooloso4
So what is 'mind'? AFAIK, basically mind is a recursive (strange looping, phenomenal self-modeling) aspect of More/Other-than-mind – a nonmental activity (process ... anatman), not an entity (ghost-in-the-machine ... X-of-the-gaps), that is functionally blind to its self-recursivity the way, for instance, an eye is transparent to itself and absent from its own field of vision. — 180 Proof
Again, changing the subject – or you're just confused, sir: "metaphysical physicalism", which you claim to "take issue" with, is not synonymous with "scientific materialism". :roll:scientific materialism — Wayfarer
The jist of my criticism of that post: Insofar as mind is nonmind-dependent (i.e. embodied), only conceptions – interpretations – of nonmind are "mind-created" abstractions from nonmind (i.e. mappings of the territory). Consequently, "idealism" equates mapping (meaning) to the territory itself as if from outside the territory (re: transcendence / transcendental (i.e. dis-embodied viewpoint)) – which is a cognitive illusion, or delusion :sparkle: – whereas "physicalism" proposes using (useable) aspects of – abstractions from – the territory for mapping other aspects of the territory ineluctably from within the territory (re: immanence i.e. embodied viewpoint). IME, modern scientific practices work in spite of the former 'metaphysical bias' and are facilitated by the latter methodology. This is why I think idealism and physicalism are not "equally compatible" with modern science.This post outlines why I don’t believe there’s any specific conflict between idealism and science.
I never claimed or implied "idealism implies anti-realism"; I think the terms are interchangeable because they both, in effect, denote a 'rejection of the nonmind-dependence of mind.' (i.e. both imply a version of dis-embodied cognition). :sparkle:First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place. — Wayfarer
Answer my question, Wayfarer, and then I'll answer yours.So, again, please demonstrate how, as you claim, 'the established facts of evolution and cosmology are "equally compatible" with idealism (i.e. antirealism) as they are with physicalism'.
— 180 Proof
First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place. — Wayfarer
The topic raisrd by OP is "the nature of esoteric forms of philosophy" and not "secular culture". Stop trying to shift the goalposts. :sweat:secular culture
:up:I think the OP logical, but it doesn't connect to anything. Spinning wheels. — Banno
No doubt.Wayfarer seems to be here to issue dispensations of authority, and confirm his own biases, not to question and subject his beliefs to the rigors of argument. — Janus
Metaphysics without logic too.Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again.
It never works out well. — Banno
Well, since very few philosophers or scientists dogmatically advocate "metaphysical physicalism", you're taking issue wirh a non-issue (or strawman), just barking at shadows in your own little cave, Wayf. :sparkle:physicalism as a metaphysical view. It's physicalism as a metaphysic that I take issue with. — Wayfarer
:clap: :fire: Excellent, well put! Thinking is questioning – being-oneself-in-question – and not merely believing in answers ("esoteric" or otherwise).If philosophy is the desire for wisdom we should be wise enough to know that we are not wise. In the Apology Socrates says that he knows nothing noble and good. (21d)Knowledge of his ignorance is the beginning not the completion of his wisdom. It is, on the one hand, the beginning of self-knowledge and on the other of the self’s knowledge of the world.
Socratic philosophy is zetetic. It is inquiry directed by our lack of knowledge. If Socrates is taken to be, as I think Plato and Xenophon intend, the paradigmatic philosopher, then the fact that he remained ignorant until the end of his life should be kept front and center. — Fooloso4
:chin: Give an example of how "idealism" is "equally compatible" (as e.g. physicalism is) with the established facts of "evolution" or "cosmology". Thanks.I fully accept the established facts of evolution and cosmology. But they do not necessarily entail physicalism. They are equally compatible with an idealist philosophy. — Wayfarer
:up:The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated. — Tzeentch
