The third premise is that one follows the Tao if one follows heaven. The fourth premise is that if the Tao follows what is natural then one follows what is natural. This all seems to me to suggest non-duality. Man, The Earth, Heaven, the Tao and nature are all one, so I can't see how saying one follows something that is not the Tao follows from saying that one follows what is natural.

Are you suggesting that what is natural is over and above and something thus different than the Tao (and by implication over and above and different from Man, the Earth and Heaven?

Are you suggesting that what is natural is over and above and something thus different than the Tao (and by implication over and above and different from Man, the Earth and Heaven? — Janus

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's The Absolute in the Hegelian sense. That, is the ultimate truth about reality. And that answers the OP of this Thread.

OK, as I understand Hegel the idea is that consciousness evolves according to a dialectic which is so rationally or logically constrained that it serves as a kind of telos. I never understood the logic of his idea of the end of history and the advent of absolute knowledge, though, since I see the process of the evolution of understanding as having no end in both senses: as not having a final goal and as never being finished.

↪Arcane Sandwich
OK, as I understand Hegel the idea is that consciousness evolves according to a dialectic — Janus

Yeah, that part of Hegel's thought is pseudoscience.

which is so rationally or logically constrained that it serves as a kind of telos. — Janus

This part of Hegel's thought is also pseudoscience.

I never understood the logic of his idea of the end of history and the advent of absolute knowledge, — Janus

Because he's wrong about that. History will exist until the last human being on this Earth has died.

I see the process of the evolution of understanding as having no end in both senses: as not having a final goal and as never being finished. — Janus

And that is the literal truth about biological evolution: it is purposeless. And that is a scientific fact.

Nice! I agree.

First premise) If one follows Man, then one also follows the Earth.
Second premise) If one follows the Earth, then one follows Heaven.
Third premise) If one follows Heaven, one follows the Tao.
Fourth premise) If the Tao follows what is natural, then one follows what is natural. — Arcane Sandwich

Another way to phrase this, if I understood your suggestion correctly, @Janus:

1st Premise) One follows Man only if one follows the Earth.
2nd Premise) One follows the Earth only if one follows Heaven.
3rd Premise) One follows Heaven only if one follows the Tao.
4th Premise) The Tao follows what is natural only if one follows the Tao.

And here is my fifth premise:

5th Premise) One follows what is natural, because one follows the Tao, only if the Tao follows what is natural.

Why is there a need for a fifth premise? Because of what you said:

This all seems to me to suggest non-duality. Man, The Earth, Heaven, the Tao and nature are all one — Janus

Count them. The terms that you just mentioned. Count them. How many are there? There are five: Man (one), The Earth (two), Heaven (three), The Tao (four), and nature (five).

Of course you're right. There are five 'elements'. I guess the difference I see is that there is no difference between any of those and thus to follow any one is really to follow all the others. And that seems to follow from the way the text is set out, too: to follow Man is to follow Earth, to follow Earth is to follow Heaven, to follow Heaven if to follow Tao and to follow Tao is to follow Nature. Perhaps we could continue: to follow Nature is to follow Man.........

I do understand the Tao and nature as being the most general or universal or overarching, though. Still, I nonetheless can't see the way (Tao) as something different from nature or the way of nature as different from nature. Maybe it's a pedantic point. I am no Dao De Ching scholar and i can only guess at the intentions of the author.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Of course you're right. There are five 'elements'. — Janus

the Tao is so quintessentially Chinese in character — Wayfarer

In Wuxing (Chinese philosophy), there are five elements: Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, and Earth.

The classic four elements from ancient Greece are: Water, Air, Fire, and Earth. The quintessence that @Wayfarer is speaking of, is what is known in the West as the Fifth Element, the Quintessence (literally meaning "fifth essence", or "Fifthness", if you will, as something different from Fourthness, Thirdness, Secondness, and Firstness (and, arguably, of Zerothness as well). The ancient Greeks call it the Aether.

In Wuxing (Chinese philosophy), there are five elements: Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, and Earth. — Arcane Sandwich

Right I was aware of that, but it wasn't what I wanted to refer to by 'elements' and nor did I want to draw any analogy.

Not sure where you are going with rest of your post.

Right I was aware of that, but it wasn't what I wanted to refer to by 'elements' and nor did I want to draw any analogy. — Janus

Then what did you want to refer to by 'elements'? And you are free to not want to draw an analogy. What does that have to do with anything in a Thread that asks how we can know the ultimate truth about reality? The OP is asking an Epistemological question, not a Metaphysical or Ontological one. It is certainly not asking a Linguistic question.

Not sure where you are going with rest of your post. — Janus

Politely, kindly, genuinely, candidly, honestly, I ask you: who is to be faulted, for your lack of sureness (or degree of certainty) in where I am going with the rest of my post?

Reaction to this post:

Sometimes in philosophy we show by arranging our concepts into a persuasive paradigms. This is very different than presenting logical arguments from true premises to demonstrated conclusions. Like “cause and effect”, we accept these concepts and enjoy the fruits, not born from logical demonstration but life forces these concepts on us. Accepting the sandwich, our big bang to certainty.

Sure, and this can absolutely be so. But there is a difference between noting this and appeals to the "language community" as somehow decisively settling all questions of solipsism or anti-realism. The madman should be nonplussed by this response. Does his speaking imply accepting a "language community?"

No, he might do so because it helps him with his delusions. Indeed, he speaks because he was deluded about the nature of the world, and he is now stuck with this habit. But just because one smokes does not mean that one is forced to affirm that "smoking isn't 'bad for me' or 'irrational.'" People who suffer from OCD or phobias often show this radical divorce between rational belief and behavior in this way. "No, I really don't think I'll get sick if I don't wash my hands 10 times... but..."

All the madman needs to affirm is that the demon tormenting them (perhaps also them) has been very clever in conditioning them.

All the madman needs to affirm is that the demon tormenting them (perhaps also them) has been very clever in conditioning them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But there is no demon.

Yes, obviously he can be wrong.

However, there is a sort of open-endedness to questioning. Just as Moore pointed out that we can always ask "is it good?" or "why is it good?" we can also always ask "but what if it is false?" or "what if I am mistaken?"

This is because reason is, in an important sense, transcendent, which is precisely what allows it to take us beyond current belief, habit, desire, etc. in search of what is truly good and really true.

However, there is a sort of open-endedness to questioning. Just as Moore pointed out that we can always ask "is it good?" or "why is it good?" we can also always ask "but what if it is false?" or "what if I am mistaken?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

In my humble opinion, to argue that is to argue about the rules of language themselves. It's a pointless discussion. Imagine if a soccer player began an argument with the referee about the rules of soccer. He would just be given a yellow card. And if he insists, he gets another yellow card, and he's out of the game.

If language is a game, then what is the point of arguing about the rules of language if no one is going to enforce the rules of the game?

If language is a game, who is the referee?

This is because reason is, in an important sense, transcendent, which is precisely what allows it to take us beyond current belief, habit, desire, etc. in search of what is truly good and really true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with you on that specific point, not necessarily other points.

If language is a game

It isn't. It shares some similarities with games.The idea that language, war, science, religion, etc. are all games requires a notion of "game" so broad as to lose the original insight about how aspects of language are like games. Plus, people routinely equivocate on the sense of "game" here.

Anyhow, does a game imply other players? Does the existence of prayer prove that God must exist? Does it prove that anyone praying must "really believe" that there is someone on the other side of their prayers? I don't think so.

Plus, people routinely equivocate on the sense of "game" here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Then the remedy for that is to learn some Game Theory. That, just for starters. They would have to learn other topics as well.

Anyhow, does a game imply other players? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, it does not. I can play Solitaire on my computer, so can you, so can they.

Does the existence of prayer prove that God must exist? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course not. It's the problem that Aristophanes points out in The Clouds.

Does it prove that anyone praying must "really believe" that there is someone on the other side of their prayers? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, but this is the point where you get some new people that join what we're discussing here. Some of them will tell you that the meaningless sing ∃ has "ontological import" (never mind even trying to understand what they mean by "ontological import", just take their word for it, hypothetically speaking, if only for the sake of argument). They will try to convince you that the expression "∃x" means "something exists". But it doesn't. "∃x" is not a well-formed formula. You need to add a predicate to it for it to have any meaning. So, if the predicate is "is Pegasus", I can say: ∃xPx, which I can then parse like so: there exists an x, such that x is Pegasus. And what I'm saying is that if the existential quantifier has ontological import, as they intend it, then Pegasus literally exists. Now I ask you: have you seen a flying horse somewhere, mate? Can I even call you "mate"? Have you allowed that? Am I insulting you? Am I trying to be your friend? What is a friend? What is an insult? What do these words mean? Are we playing a Language Game? If so, then what are the rules? Are there even any rules to begin with? What is the Universality of the Principle of Sufficient Reason? Does that question even make sense? What is sense?

That is the open-ended character of questioning that you were referring to. I call it, for a lack of a better word, "lumpen idealism".

I wasn't able to track the conversation between you two in the thread: can you provide a summary?

can you provide a summary? — Bob Ross

A summary of what we're discussing, in the context of a Thread called "How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?" That's a tall order. I mean, it's not impossible, since it's only page 3 so far. But it's still quite a tall order, I don't have that much confidence in my capacity as a philosopher to provide an answer to your question. That is due to my own incapability, not to the fact that it cannot be done, because there is no such fact, because it can be done. Just not by me.

In other words: I believe (and I may be wrong, since perhaps I am deluded) that the answer to the question of the Thread is the following one:

One can know the ultimate truth about reality by studying Hegel, because the ultimate truth about reality, is his concept of the Absolute Spirit.

That does not mean that the story ends there. It doesn't. Why not? Because, in my opinion (again, I could be wrong about this), the "moral of the story", as in "What is the Absolute Spirit?", is that the Absolute Spirit is the ontological fact that you are free to believe me, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but rather because it is a metaphysical and scientific fact that you have freedom, in the sense that you have the ontological (aka, metaphysical) capacity to make choices. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are a human being. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are a member of the biological species Homo sapiens. This is something at the level of Nature itself, it's at the level of Physics itself, because it is an ontological feature of you as a subject (which is the only thing that Zizek gets right, everything else that he says is wrong), not of you as an object.

Does that make sense to you? If not, what does your intuition tell you? What is your "gut instinct" here, so to speak?

(Edited for the sake of clarity)

Then what did you want to refer to by 'elements'? — Arcane Sandwich

Man, Earth, Heaven, Tao and Nature—the five 'elements' of the verse.

Politely, kindly, genuinely, candidly, honestly, I ask you: who is to be faulted, for your lack of sureness (or degree of certainty) in where I am going with the rest of my post? — Arcane Sandwich

I don't know. Must it be somebody's fault?

Man, Earth, Heaven, Tao and Nature—the five 'elements' of the verse. — Janus

But in Wuxing those are not all of the same elements. In Wuxing, the five elements are: Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, and Earth.

The set of elements that are found both in the Tao Te Ching and in Wuxing = {Earth}

The set of elements that are different between the Tao Te Ching and Wuxing: {{Man, Heaven, Tao, Nature},{Fire, Water, Wood, Metal}}

Objectively speaking, in a pure way (in the language of mathematics, and of set theory more specifically), it is possible to obtain several conclusions here. The Tao Te Ching and Wuxing only have Earth in common.
As for the next part, notice that it is a set that has two subsets:

1) the first subset is = {Man, Heaven, Tao, Nature}
2) the second subset is = {Fire, Water, Wood, Metal}

That might not mean much to you, or to anyone, including myself. Because it is trivial. But it is not as trivial as it seems. For it is unambiguous language. It is as objective as it can possibly be, from the First Person Perspective of a human being (myself, in this specific case).

I wasn't equating the 'elements' of the verses with the five elements. I never had that in mind at all.

Thanks for the summary.

How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?

I am assuming by “ultimate truth” that you are referring to absolute truth. Prima facie, as @Mww would tell you, the only way to know reality absolutely is if one’s cognition were capable of representing with 1:1 accuracy; but this is never actually possible, because every cognition has a priori modes for cognizing and of which are always independent of the data received of reality—hence a priori.

However, it is worth mentioning that there is such a thing as more or less accurate cognitions; but just that absolute knowledge of reality is never possible with any cognition.

The best we can get is the “Peircian” pragmatist’s idea that “Truth is the end of inquiry”.

One can know the ultimate truth about reality by studying Hegel, because the ultimate truth about reality, is his concept of the Absolute Spirit.

That is an answer that can be traditionally offered; but I am in no way qualified to critique Hegel. He sucks at writing, and, unfortunately, I am incapable of penetrating into what the dude meant.

That is an answer that can be traditionally offered; but I am in no way qualified to critique Hegel. He sucks at writing, and, unfortunately, I am incapable of penetrating into what the dude meant. — Bob Ross

Well, not quite, you see, because you speak the English language, which has a common etymology with Medieval German. I'll give you one example: Hegel establishes a distinction between "Thingness" and "Objectivity", and he prefers the latter. "Why does he prefer the latter?", you might ask? For no particular reason. It's simply an Aesthetic choice. Aesthetics, my friend, is Hegel's true First Philosophy. Think about it, he was a Romanticist. Why would he love Logic more than Aesthetics? He wouldn't, he wasn't a Classicist, he was a Medievalist.

You would have to find an equivalent, in your community, to what Hegel represented to the Common German Peasant of the 1800s. He was a Folk Hero. That's why they elevated him to the highest possible position in Academia, nay, they elevated his position within the State itself (he was, after all "the Philosopher of Germany", as in, their quasi-official "Philosopher of the State"), insofar an academic could make a career in the first half of the 19th Century. The closest equivalent to Hegel in North America, for example, is Peirce. It's not Walt Whitman, as Rorty has argued in print. It's Peirce, dude.

(note: I edited this comment for the sake of clarity. -Arcane Sandwich)

P.S.: "Who is Clarity?"

This is because reason is, in an important sense, transcendent, which is precisely what allows it to take us beyond current belief, habit, desire, etc. in search of what is truly good and really true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What do you mean by reason being transcendent?

Do you mean by this that reason provides a universal framework, which transcends our personal and cultural beliefs, and therefore is able to facilitate a dialogue about what is "truly good" or "really true" ? Or do you mean that reason may function as a conduit for us to access a 'divine' realm? Do you see reason as having limitations?

Guess I am thinking about this, so well summarized by @Wayfarer in another thread.

I’ve become very interested in (although not very knowledgeable about) the idea of the ‘divine intellect’ in Aristotle and Platonism generally. The basic thrust is that the power of reason is what distinguishes the human from other animals - hence man as the ‘rational animal’. It preserves the tripartite distinction in Plato's diaogues of the rational element of the soul as being the highest part. @wayfarer

You can't know the truth about reality, but you can have knowledge. Read here if you're interested. There's a fantastic summary of the post from the next person who posted if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Prima facie, as Mww would tell you, the only way to know reality absolutely is if one’s cognition were capable of representing with 1:1 accuracy; but this is never actually possible….. — Bob Ross

Careful, Bob. Even granting no conceptual conflict between ultimate and absolute, the initial query regards knowing about the ultimate truth of reality, but you’re roping me into a situation regarding the truth of absolute reality. See what I mean? Absolute truth (of ___), or truth of (absolute _____)?

But all that aside, you’re right: I would never admit to, nor be convinced of, the idea, much less the possibility, of knowing ultimate truth about reality, or, knowing reality absolutely.

Still, as in all the other similar occasions….thanks for respecting my opinions.

Do you mean by this that reason provides a universal framework, which transcends our personal and cultural beliefs, and therefore is able to facilitate a dialogue about what is "truly good" or "really true" ? Or do you mean that reason may function as a conduit for us to access a 'divine' realm? Do you see reason as having limitations?

You might take it that far, but it can be far more concrete. Consider picking out a school for your kid or buying a car. You want a school/car that is truly good, not one that merely appears to be good, or one which is said to be good by others. Likewise, if you have back pain, you want a treatment that will truly fix it, not just one that appears good or is said to be good.

The desire for what is truly good is what takes us beyond appearances (generally the purview of the appetites) and "what others say" (generally the purview of the "spirited part of the soul," particularly our concern with honor, status, reputation, etc.). It's the desire for what is really true and truly good that consistently motivates us to move beyond current belief and desire. This is how reason is transcendent, through its desire to know truth it takes us beyond the given of what we already are. You could call it ecstatic as well, since it involves going outside of what we currently are.

Now, we might very well be led around by our passions and appetites and still end up being exposed to new things, forming new beliefs, even learning things. However, our attempt to go beyond what we already are here, beyond current belief and desire, will only be accidental in this case, something we stumble across as we pursue our current desires based on our current beliefs. It's reason's desire for the True/Good that makes this its very mission.

It's also reason that allows for us to have coherent "second order volitions," i.e., the desire to have or not to have other desires. E.g., "I wish I didn't want to x..." It is what allows us to ask "I have a strong desire for x, but is x truly desirable?" Or "I am enraged with Y and have a strong desire to vent my wrath, and to restore my honor, but is this truly good?" The target of these questions lies outside current desire and belief.



In the modern tradition, reason is often deflated into mere calculation. So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place.

In the modern tradition, reason is often deflated into mere calculation. So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What at odd thing to say. "Hume Guillotine"? Sounds grotesque. Yet I digress.

Allow me to ask you this: what is the Kantian Thing In Itself? Have you seen it, with your very own eyes?

You might take it that far, but it can be far more concrete. Consider picking out a school for your kid or buying a car. You want a school/car that is truly good, not one that merely appears to be good, or one which is said to be good by others. Likewise, if you have back pain, you want a treatment that will truly fix it, not just one that appears good or is said to be good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, although I might say this is a contingent form of good as it would be 'truly good' for a specific purpose - my back - and such an efficacious approach may not work on other's backs or even mine, a year later. So the good is relative to a set of circumstances.

But I get what you are saying.

The desire for what is truly good is what takes us beyond appearances (generally the purview of the appetites) and "what others say" (generally the purview of the "spirited part of the soul," particularly our concern with honor, status, reputation, etc.). It's the desire for what is really true and truly good that consistently motivates us to move beyond current belief and desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But wouldn't the search for such good generally always be a good which is fit for practical purpose founded in experiential practices, rather than a platonic notion of good?

t's also reason that allows for us to have coherent "second order volitions," i.e., the desire to have or not to have other desires. E.g., "I wish I didn't want to x..." It is what allows us to ask "I have a strong desire for x, but is x truly desirable?" Or "I am enraged with Y and have a strong desire to vent my wrath, and to restore my honor, but is this truly good?" The target of these questions lies outside current desire and belief. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I can see this.

Might it not also be argued that reason itself is a part of human practice and shaped by history and culture, so when viewed from this perspective, reason cannot take us entirely "beyond" our current contexts. In other words it can't really take us to the 'truly' part of truly good... Thoughts?

In the modern tradition, reason is often deflated into mere calculation. So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, as a person of the current time and place I do tend to regard reason as a tool or calculating mechanism. It helps us to solve problems - which may just be expressing a low-rent form of pragmatism (my specialty). And defending the use of reason raises problems of self-referential circularity.

It also seems to me that reason can be blunt and often abstracted and that the matters of importance, such as aesthetics, values and belonging are beyond reason and are more like sense making via affective responses. And yes, we all know the risks inherent in this. I guess reasoning can help us develop balance and perspective. It also seems to be that idealizing reason can swiftly lead us to scientism or fascism or any number of isms.

I guess this all goes to your point

So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, although I might say this is a contingent form of good as it would be 'truly good' for a specific purpose - my back - and such an efficacious approach may not work on other's backs or even mine, a year later. So the good is relative to a set of circumstances. — Tom Storm

Unless there is a good that is non-relative to a set of circumstances. Such a good would be, in that sense, an absolute good, as opposed to a mere relative good.