Poetic language may be able to evoke them, and that's about the best you're gonna get. — Janus

Philosophy has always grappled with the 'meaning of Being', explicitly or otherwise.

Let physics do physics. Let phenomenology do phenomenology. Lets not conflate them. — Apustimelogist

You're not thinking philosophically, but like an engineer.

I will be offline for a while. Thanks for the feedback.

Philosophy has always grappled with the 'meaning of Being', explicitly or otherwise. — Wayfarer

I'd say it's more the case that it has grappled with the meaninglessness of being. Only certain philosophers have bothered to try to deal with, as Aristotle says "being as being". Heidegger comes to mind, but he anthropomorphizes being as "Dasein". I don't deny it's one way of looking at it, and perhaps not without some interest, but there is no one "correct" way to think about being. There are only ways that make sense in various contexts, and ways that make no sense at all.

You're not thinking philosophically, but like an engineer. — Wayfarer

And in saying that you're pontificating like a fool.

Philosophy has always grappled with the 'meaning of Being', explicitly or otherwise.
— Wayfarer

I'd say it's more the case that it has grappled with the meaninglessness of being

You're not thinking philosophically, but like an engineer.
— Wayfarer

And in saying that you're pontificating like a fool. — Janus

:lol: :up:

The ‘subject’ at issue is not you viewed objectively; it is the subject or observer for whom anything can appear as ‘a world’ at all. — Wayfarer

Of course the subject is me! It's a different perspective - but a different perspective of the same me. It's like working in building: you know the building from the perspective of an occupant - where the toilets are, the carpet colors, knowledge of other occupants, etc. Someone who never worked in this building will not have this insider perspective, but you would be able to understand his perspective - one based on external appearances. These 2 perspectives have no ontological significance - what's different is the background knowledge and context.

By re-describing the ‘I’ entirely from the third-person standpoint, you’ve already shifted back into the objective stance and thereby bracketed out the very role of subjectivity that is in question.

Acknowledging my subjectivity does not undercut my beliefs about things that exist. If one believes X exists, then one believes this to be objective fact. Pointing to the phenomenology doesn't undercut anyone's beliefs about what exists. It only raises the possibility of having false beliefs about reality, and possibility alone is of no epistemic value - beyond the modal truth.

I have the capacity to consider myself from a 3rd person perspective, but that's all it is: a perspective. It's an exercise in considering the world at large, and my place in it. It has no ontological significance - except to the degree that having this cognitive capacity needs to be accounted for ontologically.

In terms of my building analogy, I'm the sole occupant of me. I have internal knowledge of me that is unavailable to anyone else. But I can still consider myself from an outsider's perspective. It doesn't imply an ontological distinction, just a difference of background knowledge and context.

Nearly everyone on earth does this implicitly!
— Relativist

Right! Which is why it's so hard to argue against. — Wayfarer

What I'm looking for is your own epistemic justification to believe what you do. You previously shared the common view - it was a belief you held. Somehow, your old beliefs were supplanted. You make much of the phenomenology; if that were the sole basis, it would be irrational - it would be dropping a belief because it's possibly false. So there must be more than that. This is what I'm asking you to explain.

it's not a 'problem to be solved'. It's not that 'nobody can describe pain satisfactorily'. It's being pointed to as an 'explanatory gap' - 'look, no matter how sophisticated your scientific model, it doesn't capture or convey the felt experience of pain, or anything other felt experience.' So there's a fundamental dimension of existence that is left out of objective accounts. — Wayfarer

I think you mean that third-person descriptions cannot convey knowledge of pain. This is Mary's room. Knowledge of pain and other qualia is a knowledge of experience. Nevertheless, it IS an explanatory gap that a complete ontology should account for. You talk around the issue in vague terms, by (I think) implying there's something primary about first-person-ness. Does that really tell us anything about ontology? It's not an explanation, it's a vague claim that you purport to be central. Obviously, 1st person experience is central to a first-person perspective. It's also the epistemic foundation for understanding the world. But it seems an unjustified leap to suggest it is an ontological foundation - as you seem to be doing.

But...there's no reason to think this is the case- there's no evidence of it, and it's not entailed by accepted theory.
But there’s no reason to assume that it isn’t the case either. It’s a possibility, so having an understanding of what we don’t know helps us to not make assumptions, or broad brush conclusions about the world and existence. — Punshhh

You're right. My issue is how one uses possibilities in further reasoning. Conpiracy theories begin with a possibility. It's possible some vaccine increases the liklihood of autism. It would be irrational to reject vaccines solely on the basis of this possibility. It would be rational to examine data to look for correlations.

My issue is how one uses possibilities in further reasoning.

What I’m getting at here is that by examining feasible possibilities, one can see the orthodox explanations in a different light. This helps to develop a broader context and develop ways of thinking outside of the orthodox paradigm. Add into the mix the extent of what we don’t know, then one can in a sense break free of the orthodox. This is how mysticism makes use of philosophy.

An example, when contemplating being I sometimes imagine all beings are one being, manifest as many separate beings extended through time and space. So in a sense, all beings have a part of themselves which is that one being simultaneously, while living as many separate beings. This can become an axiom in a sense from which implications can be drawn about how this might offer a different view about what beings are and how they interact in the world. If I watch a murmeration of birds. Here in the U.K. you can watch vast flocks of starlings flying in formation. Displaying complex patterns which have through evolution developed the ability to confuse peregrine falcons. The flock is acting as one being in that moment. Are these birds watching each other to know how to fly in formation? Are they using some kind of telepathy? Are they literally being one being? Well in my example, they are one being, they are not watching each other, or using telepathy, but that part of themselves which is that one being. And through doing it in this way, they become extra responsive and gain an edge on the peregrine.

I think this is a serious oversimplification. Aristotle does not abandon Forms; his hylomorphism is still a form–based ontology—the difference is that Forms are no longer conceived as existing in a separate, self-subsisting realm, but as ontologically prior principles instantiated in matter. Matter, for Aristotle, has no actuality or determinate identity on its own; it exists only as pure potentiality until it receives form. — Wayfarer

Yes, Realism vs Idealism is a dualistic simplification of a multi-faceted complex concept that contains various aspects of both outlooks : what I facetiously call Redealism : the top-down view of a material world populated with imperfect people who create little perfect worlds in their own minds.

Whether that duality is an "over-simplification" depends on personal preference : perfect models vs messy actuality. Deep thinkers have been arguing over absolute truth (philosophy) vs practical usefulness (science) for at least 2500 years.

In the context of this thread, my preference is to over-simplify the philosophical battleground between Plato and Aristotle as a focus on either Transcendence or Immanence. And then, to put each notion into its proper context --- whatever that may be. Both views may be ultimately proven valid or invalid depending on its application : universal or local.

Therefore, my wishy-washy BothAnd*1 position varies, depending on the context of the moment. In this thread, I stand mutably in the moot mushy moderate middle-ground of maybe; where I get shot-at from both sides, by those standing on the firm ground of certainty. :smile:



*1. The BothAnd Philosophy :
Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to relevant wisdom. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of applied Science and Philosophical dialog. In addition to ivory tower theories, practical Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
   The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
   The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the "Perfect" divine revelations of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis** or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
   The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which transcends the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.


* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb;  researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.
** Phronesis : an Ancient Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical action, implying both good judgement and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html