Philosophy is tangled words. — Banno
What could it even mean to ask if the noumenal cup, the cup in itself, is in the cupboard, though? To ask such questions is to push the bounds of coherence. I think the only possible answer to that kind of question would be the advaitic one: 'the cup is both in the cupboard and not in the cupboard, and is neither in the cupboard nor not in the cupboard'. — John
What I don't think is that we can sensibly argue that reality is or is not like this or that, unless we are talking about empirical reality; the shared world of intersubjective experience. This wanting to argue about how things "ultimately" are is a cause of great problems for human beings in senseless clashes of ideologies and religious fundamentalisms. — John
So, don't agree in the least that the concern for ultimate truths is only the cause of ideological conflict or fundamentalism. — Wayfarer
It all goes back to the ruminations of the difference between reality and appearance. If there is no difference, then philosophy is an entirely pointless discipline. — Wayfarer
But you always seem to be the one of the ones arguing that we cannot know anything beyond appearances, which is a bit confusing given what you are saying here, to say the least. — John
I don't say that the concern for ultimate truths is the cause of ideological conflict or fundamentalism at all. I say that the misunderstanding of the idea of ultimate truth, thinking that it can be discursively formulated, is the cause. The concern for goodness, beauty and truth is the greatest part of humanity; without that we would be nothing. — John
'How else could we know reality?'. — John
These form a part of all classical cultures, and they're seriously undermined and eroded by scientific materialism and global capitalist culture. — Wayfarer
Waking up to that requires a different mode of being in the world. (That is the subject of Paul Tyson's book, Defragmenting Modernity, which is on my current titles list. It's also the subject of Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances). — Wayfarer
Can you think of any way of testing the holographic model? — John
may be quite possible that the core self is what we return to, and that we can enter into a particular body to live out a particular life. Once we die, then we simply return to the core self, and our memories return, like awakening from a dream. — Sam26
Think of it as akin to waking up. Thus, as moving from one state of consciousness to another. While in a dream, it's still you, but just in a lower state of awareness. The main point is that there is continuity of the self. If there is no continuity of memory or experience, then it wouldn't be you, and that I think is what is wrong with the doctrine of reincarnation - it loses this continuity. What I have learned by studying NDEs is that the continuity is maintained. — Sam26
From a strictly empirical perspective, "reincarnation", or perhaps rather "immortality", seems to be nothing more than the assumption of perpetually observed change. — sime
Observation can move to nothing (as it does while asleep and not dreaming) — Rich
The temporal realist will want to insist that they were truly unconscious in the past, perhaps by saying "I recall being unconscious". But the temporal anti-realist will then respond "how do you 'know' you were unconscious in the past? To which the realist can only respond "because i presently experience having no recollection" - which is really only to assert that their current experiences do not involve memories of sleeping. — sime
Whatever the self is, there is no 'it', as it's never the object of perception. — Wayfarer
So there remain issues with the coherence of that approach. — Banno
I have long rejected reincarnation on the grounds that it uses a confused notion of the self. It is unclear how Banno could be the very same person who was previously Napoleon... — Banno
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.