Surely, sharing would work everywhere? — Truth Seeker
That's why I'd suggest religion perseveres in an otherwise scientific world. It simply provides answers science does not. — Hanover
Buddha wouldn't have been Buddha and neither would Schopenhauer been Schopenhauer without a strong sense of identity derived from the suffering of others, yes? — Shawn
It's fairly easy to empathise with another. I don't think sympathy arises out of nowhere. — Shawn
Yes, well isn't it derived from a sense of compassion, or a strong sense of empathy towards others? — Shawn
Why does one read philosophy? — Constance
I stopped caring about what my confrères were talking about long ago. — Constance
One has to care about one's finitude in the midst of radical indeterminacy, because our existence is essentially ethically and aesthetically founded on caring. We ARE caring, and caring seeks consummation. Such a thing is generally confined to the usual matters, the owning of things and basic enjoyments. But philosophy takes one thoughtfully where religion once could only go. — Constance
Quite the problem to solve. Only one solution I see: The terms of object intimation (the cat) must exceed the idea of locality. It simply cannot be that that cat over there is independent and localized as normal perception tells us. — Constance
See the above: how is knowledge possible? Well, it isn't. YET, there is no question I see the cat. And so knowledge is simply a fact. Quite the problem to solve. Only one solution I see: The terms of object intimation (the cat) must exceed the idea of locality. It simply cannot be that that cat over there is independent and localized as normal perception tells us. — Constance
I claim something far more interesting and difficult, which is acknowledging that the everyday world really is — Constance
Because you and I have spent our lives in a world that ignores metaphysics. — Constance
How about my cat: does she exist? How is the word 'cat' such that when I use it, I am dealing with the real? Or is the term just like General Motors? — Constance
Robert Sokolowski's "The Phenomenology of the Human Person, — Count Timothy von Icarus
As to how ‘reliable’ it is, obviously anyone is liable to self-delusion, but nevertheless grappling with that existence is an essential part of the philosophical quest. — Wayfarer
You often ask 'why should I bother with this?' But something keeps drawing you back into these discussions. — Wayfarer
I think It’s essential that you learn to feel what you cannot know. Coming to think of it, this is a large part of what 'mindfulness meditation' comprises - learning that the verbal or discursive element of your being is only one facet of a much greater whole. That also comes out in artistic performance and art generally. But being aware of it is important - a kind of somatic or bodily awareness, not just on the conceptual level. That's what comes from 'zazen'. Also, for anyone that has done awareness training of the kind done at EST and the like, you're taught that ego resists this awareness, as ego's role is to incorporate everything under its gaze. That is what 'letting go' means in relation to contemplative awareness. (And I *think* this is related to the OP.) — Wayfarer
The question-begging (Platonic / Cartesian / transcendent) assumption in (Kantian, Husserlian) transcendental arguments is that "in there" (mind) is somehow separable from – outside of – "out there" (non-mind (e.g. world)). That's how it's always seemed to me which is why I prefer Spinoza's philosophical naturalism to the much less radical (i.e. more anthropocentric) 'transcendental idealism' of Kant et al. — 180 Proof
I agree with the relevance of the distinction of 'transcendent' and 'transcendental' noted above, but the latter is in some ways just as difficult to understand - it to is connected with the concept of the 'a priori' which also is a form of 'always already so'. — Wayfarer
This is inexorably connected with what is nowadays (usually dismissively) described as mysticism. But then Wittgenstein also said, not far from those other passages I quoted 'There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical'. — Wayfarer
When we say "transcendence", don't we usually mean something metaphysical like 'X transcends, or is beyond, Y' (e.g. ineffable, inexplicable, unconditional, immaterial, disembodied, etc)? — 180 Proof
We live in transcendence. We are this. I think one has to take the time to leave the text and realize that we are in this "place" that is alien to the language that we use to understand things. — Constance
I want to know the nature of something that is there to be observed, like natural condition is there for a natural scientist, PRIOR to it being taken up by cultures and their institutions and turned into an infinitely debatable construct. — Constance
An atheist,
With feelings so strong,
Denies there’s a God,
Which is something quite wrong. — Beverley
But to me it seems clear,
All this is absurd.
For the only difference
Is just in a word. — Beverley
I wonder where your thoughts lie on the matter. — Constance
That argument only works for that one person.
— Fire Ologist
Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world. — Hallucinogen
The believer trusts God. That can only look reasonable to someone else who trusts God. — Fire Ologist
Yes, so since religions have certain aspects in common, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping those personal experiences having subjective qualitiies specific to the experiencer, so long as universal features aren't contradicted. — Hallucinogen
How exactly do we determine which of these stories (...) are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?
— Tom Storm
Using a model that establishes the criteria for each category. — Hallucinogen
St Faustina Helen Kowalska saw apparitions of Jesus Christ in the 1930s, which have served as the basis for a popular devotion.
Marguerite-Marie Alacoque had visions of Jesus in which He showed her His Sacred Heart
Marie-Julie Jahenny had visions of Jesus' Heart. — Hallucinogen
Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model. — Hallucinogen
I think compared to our inherited bourgous and egological way of life, stocism and other such doctrines were very austere. And indeed Schopenhaur praises asceticism as the solution to the problem of human willfulness. Easy to say, but very hard to do, unless it's inculcated during your formative years. (I speak from experience.) — Wayfarer
(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen
Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold. — BitconnectCarlos
There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid. — BitconnectCarlos
Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. — BitconnectCarlos
I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture. — BitconnectCarlos
Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you. — BitconnectCarlos
According to this, "many philosophers have argued that relativity implies eternalism. Philosopher of science Dean Rickles says that, "the consensus among philosophers seems to be that special and general relativity are incompatible with presentism."
— Tom Storm
Relativity does give a strong suggestion, but it is going too far to assert full incompatibility.
The two premises of SR is where the trouble is. I googled "premises of special relativity" — noAxioms
There are three kinds of time, and those that ask "what is time" never seem to realize it. — noAxioms
This is obviously not the case, so consequently we are forced to acknowledge that our consciousness, one way or the other, can encompass more than that which is given right now. We can be co-conscious of that which has just been, and that which is just about to occur.
We can perceive temporal objects because consciousness is not caught in the now. We do not merely perceive the now-phase of the triad, but also its past and future phases.
By phenomenological I meant phenomenological
philosophy ( Husserl, Mwrleau-Ponty.) This does not mean mere introspection, but a method of
reflection on experience that brings out structures unavailable to empirical third person models. — Joshs
What is missing is the phenomenological experience of time , which involves a different notion of evidence than empirical naturalism makes use of. — Joshs
Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? I cannot see life as anything other than this, but it could also be something that we simply create out of life. — Arnie
I feel I am very much a novice — Gingethinkerrr
Why were you smoking at this house? — Jamal