I'm not sure if that disagrees with you or not. — T Clark
Philosophy wants literally to lose itself in everything that is heterogeneous to it, without bringing it back to ready-made categories. It would like to nestle in close to what it isn’t ... Its aim is undiminished kenosis, self-emptying. — Adorno
Nope. I've avoided all mind-altering substances on the grounds my neurochemistry seems nicely functional, thank you. ;)Ever tried it? — Janus
In any case, I would never recommend taking psychotropics regularly, so your objection is not really relevant. Although some people do claim that micro-dosing can give a mental and creative edge; but that is a different matter; I have no experience to speak of with that. — Janus
Attempting to explain psychedelic experience to one who has not experienced it is like trying to describe colour to the congenitally blind. — Janus
There's a sense in which God here would see less than a human would, and not more. — StreetlightX
Specialization does not extrapolate reliably to the large picture. You need to be more of a generalists who is able to zoom out and take it a wider range of clarity, at the same time. From the big picture, the specialty details, can take on new meaning. — wellwisher
But, as I say in every post, organicism languishes as a well understood world view - as a metaphysics with a mathematical rigour. — apokrisis
Mechanicalism is held in high esteem because the mathematics of that (the very dumb and simple maths) has become something drummed in from birth. What could be more tragic than those parents of newborns who rush to decorate the baby room with the alphabet and numbers? — apokrisis
And this OP was tragic in celebrating a general rejection of totalising systems, just because the mechanical model is so patently dumb (if matchingly useful if you want a thoroughly mechanised life). — apokrisis
So what we ought to be focused on is the organic metaphysics that has the kind of rigour that lets us make better judgements because we know what actually makes life and mind tick. — apokrisis
Straight away we ought to be able to look at pills and schools seeing why they wouldn't lead to the best outcomes because they embody a mechanical crudeness. The reason why they would disappoint would leap out at us as obvious once we had the conceptual frame which allows us to perceive that. — apokrisis
But it works both ways. What is it like to have a mind that has never been blown? :grin:
Or if we are talking about the advantages of things being revealed, what is it like to have a mind that understands the neurochemistry? Will you ever know what you are missing?
We can all play these games. I say judge them on the pragmatic fruits. Which kinds of revealed truth are going to be of the most value to you over the course of a lifetime.
And of course, I am alert to the fact that our choices of which avenues of experience to pursue are the ones that end up defining us, so shaping our feeling about the answer as to what mattered. Your drug experiences may indeed be fundamental to your resulting sense of self. They did become the invaluable part of "you being you".
So you can't be persuaded they might be trite experiences when they are experiences integral to your ego. I respect that. It is why I say I am not making any high ground moral judgement. — apokrisis
You've squeezed from hippies what you can, so all that's left is an abstract, schematic [hippie]. — csalisbury
Nuff of that hippie talk! what about sitting in silence and thinking about peirce and being vaguely mad about it and so getting online and posting?? Thats the real pragmatic ---- — csalisbury
there's my apo! — csalisbury
[How does being a hippie on acid help you realize biosemiotics and talk about it often ] — csalisbury
Isn't this just "thing-in-itself"? — schopenhauer1
[Nietzsche] thought that love of systems was a human weakness and that the stronger one’s character, the less one would need and the less attracted one would be to a system. Nietzsche holds that if God were to exist, he would not, contrary to eighteenth-century views, be a master geometer with a universal system of the world. He would see each thing clearly as precisely that which it is and nothing else, and he would not need to use a concept to catch it and reduce it to something else he already knows. — Raymond Geuss
You don't think that it is interesting that we use the word "see" in such a context considering that we are visual creatures that receive most of the information about the world via light and therefore tend to think that the world is the way that it appears to our eyes? — Harry Hindu
See what? All you did is agree with me and expand on what I already said - that we use the term "see" as a replacement for "truth" and "understanding" because we are visual creatures. We think that the way things appear visually to us is how they really are.I think you're right - humans are visual. That's probably why we say "see." "See" is often used as a synonym for "understand." I don't see why you can't see that. — T Clark
What about how non-humans get signals? What is differentiated is the form our sensory information takes. Feeling isn't the same as seeing yet different senses can provide the same information - just in a different form. You can feel the injury on your back but cannot see it. I can see it but can't feel it. We both have access to the same information - that you have an injury on your back. Who has access to more information about your injury?Hearing, touch, smell, taste. Any way that humans get signals from the outside world. But that input, just like the world itself, would be undifferentiated. — T Clark
There've been few philosophers who have so vehemently rejected the idea of the 'thing-in-itself' as much Nietzsche, so no, it's definitely not. Nietzsche's point is that this kind of 'seeing' can, even if only fleetingly, take place. For Geuss, Nietzsche's entire philosophy is, if nothing else, an attempt - not always realised - to attain just that point of view upon things. The context in which the quote from the OP is taken is a discussion of critiques of Nietzsche which complain that Nietzsche is not systematic enough. Here is how it begins: — StreetlightX
I think that these criticisms, in the form in which they are given here, are completely misguided. They suggest that Nietzsche was trying desperately to be Hegel but unfortunately failing, when in part the point of his work was that he was trying desperately not to be Hegel (or any similar systematic philosopher) but to engage intellectually with each situation as it came, without reducing it to a prepared category or a pregiven position in a discursive network." (Geuss, Changing the Subject). The quote in the OP follows directly after this. — StreetlightX
If we want labels, perhaps something like: 'direct conception'. — StreetlightX
Is spirituality in its healthy form not always both "this-worldy" (immanent) and "other-worldly" (transcendent)? It seems that "this-worldly" action is always informed by "other-worldly" understanding. Even if you take Nietzsche who despised the transcendent - wasn't the value creation of the Ubermensch transcendent itself? Where did the value come from, if it wasn't in the world before the Ubermensch? It was the Ubermensch who revealed it, who made it present, and who thereby creatively changed and affirmed the fullness of the world. There is a tension here that must be maintained between the transcendent and the immanent. Plato would call it a metaxy.this-worldly) "spirituality" — Erik
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.