like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise — Wayfarer
highlight how superficial our knowledge might be. — Wayfarer
I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, and that this ignorance extends to all human endeavors, including the sacred ones. — praxis
The obvious conclusion seems that, to people who share a similar outlook, science, math, esotericism, and mysticism are connected in some way or another but then there are many mathematicians and scientists who think nothing of mystics and vice versa. — TheMadFool
I know that we should better agree to disagree. But I am a curious person. I try to understand or provoke different arguments and have always failed to fathom the essence of the perceived need for explanation. Not that I don't feel it. I do. But I think that it may not be what it appears to the person themselves. That I just need permanence and am grasping at air for immutable objective.Explanation for science means to simplify and harmonize, not to assume that something is foundational. Atoms are not more fundamental to chairs and stones, but they offer terms of understanding of the complex interactions that sometimes occur, such as burning and chemistry, without making every encounter with those phenomena a case by case study.Regarding the ‘laws of the Universe ‘ - important to recognise that science has no explanation for why there are such laws, or why the universe is lawful. — Wayfarer
There is a kind of 'religious underground' in Western thought - Descartes secretly a Rosicrucian, Newton with interests in alchemy and occult, Hegel an hermetic. — Wayfarer
meaning that it is not a search for explanation in the same sense as physics (to simplify and harmonize), — simeonz
I dislike the word "occult" — TheMadFool
Try googling ‘dark matter occult’. — Wayfarer
By simplified, I mean that distinct in appearance phenomena were consequently accounted for by interrelated causes, which reduced the number of cases that had to be dealt with conceptually (even if not so much practically). By harmonized, I meant that theories were unified, that is, explanations were reconciled.Physical theories produce many practical consequences, not least of which the one you’re looking at right now, but saying that modern physics has ‘simplified and harmonised’ is almost hilarious, considering. — Wayfarer
You said that 'science has no explanation why there are such laws'. What do you mean by "why" — simeonz
Could you elaborate what an answer to such a question should provide, to be considered meaningful, and what are your reasons to expect that the answer exists and thus the question is well posed? — simeonz
Don't get me wrong. I relate to your suggestion as a feeling, but I believe that we are making projection of our ethical considerations into the world.That we are here for a reason. It’s not ‘a reason’ as in what, if you’re an actor, is given to you as a script. It may not be obvious or even meaningful to some other person. But there’s a reason why the universe gave rise to beings such as us, and even you in particular, and a large part of philosophy is in discerning that and responding to it. This is what the East calls your ‘Dharma’. — Wayfarer
what 'reason' means for me, abstractly speaking, when I am trying to be detached from emotion and bias as much as possible, appears to be just a relationship that people explore while pursuing their goals. ...What do you mean by 'reason'? Is it something ethically immersed? What is your abstract definition of reason, or do you consider it a notion that need not be explained? — simeonz
The origin of modern science was to concentrate on a particular type of causal explanation - what Aristotle would call material and efficient causation. What cause gives rise to what effect? But the two other kinds of causes were left out. — Wayfarer
It must be then that were Aristotle alive, science would be exactly half the picture in his eyes. — TheMadFool
I have to be honest. If I start to respond with inquiries on that paragraph, I will first ask what "freedom" is and how is it different from having your agency in the world physically present. I understand that there are physical laws that govern human beings, but that does not change the fact that they are separable as state. That is, what is the difference between having a mind of your own, and a physical state of your own. Do we need anything else that we get from transcendence - non-determinism, sense of investment, sense of involvement. Also, why is a deity needed, such that we can justify the existence of external factors, other then through intuition. I think that I am too skeptical, and I know that we differ in opinion in this regard.But from the perspective of Christian philosophy, perhaps that 'principle of self-organisation' is what has been 'bestowed' by 'the Creator'. That is what it means to say that beings 'borrow' their being from God. Hence, the freedom of will that is an essential part of the theistic model. All sentient beings are, as it were, recapitulations of being, within their capacity. In man, this capacity can come to full realisation, which is what Eastern religions call 'realisation'. — Wayfarer
If reason is how things are, then why look for it beyond the things themselves? I don't oppose the idea that the world is divine, as in beyond our personal agency, but why look beyond it? We have to have some, apparently presently unmet, criteria for "ultimate reason", or otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this. Can you elaborate on what such "ultimate reason" would provide for us - fairness, peace, vindication of effort?So, in a sense, you can't 'explain' reason, because reason is 'that which explains'. The mistake of modern philosophy is to reduce reason to a Darwinian faculty. Reason, in modern philosophy, has become 'instrumentalised' - it only has value insofar as it serves ends, and those ends are determined by survival. — Wayfarer
Can you elaborate on what such "ultimate reason" would provide for us - fairness, peace, vindication of effort? — simeonz
I think this describes one of the pitfalls of modern culture well - it caters to these lower needs in a cycle of neverending non-satisfaction. — Pantagruel
Yes and no. I love your explanation and with it, it is a yes! But you are speaking of complex concepts and we need to know the simpler concepts that go with the complex concept, as you did by explaining D and B.But the whole idea of stoicism is that one consciously trains oneself to learn to master and control exactly what constitutes satisfaction of these lower motivations. — Pantagruel
Why do people need crutches, dram and/or drugs? Same reason they need "religious beliefs and ideas": because thinking hurts a lot more than just making shit up. — 180 Proof
I prefer to think that rather than being brainwashed we can enter into our own symbolic quests, the journey of the shaman. Of course, that does come with perils but it is about discovering our own mythic truths. — Jack Cummins
Yeah, science and even math, in certain respects, seems to have come full circle. Both had origins in occult practices (grain of salt recommended), along the way, they discarded this filial association, and now, they're back into doing business in the gray zone between science as we know it and, for lack of a better word, religion. The child has returned home. — TheMadFool
We can pursue spirituality without religion, I agree, but the reason I was asking about the value of myths is because I believe that the value is in reenforcing social truths, and social truths are necessarily social, so what role would they play in a individual pursuit? Perhaps it’s like art, where we can both discover and express ‘truths’ with others? — praxis
↪Gregory
Nor is there any mention of the word 'soul'. I did an MA thesis on this topic, if you like I'll PM you a hyperlink. Your thinking is muddled. — Wayfarer
It may be that philosophy can make use of blending as a concept for putting ideas together, rather than being just about refuting arguments. — Jack Cummins
//and I’m not saying that as a preamble to saying that ‘God did it’, only to highlight how superficial our knowledge might be.// — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.