What is literally inexpressible... — Posty McPostface
Wittgenstein thought that his transcendental idealist doctrines, though profoundly important, are literally inexpressible. — Posty McPostface
In the story, Śākyamuni gives a wordless sermon to the Sangha by simply holding up a flower. No one in the audience understands except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles.
Within Zen, the Flower Sermon communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā and Mahākāśyapa's smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words.
Śākyamuni affirmed this by saying:
I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvāṇa, the true form of the formless, the subtle Dharma Gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.
I'd answer you, but I can't express the answer. :wink: :up: — Pattern-chaser
Compassion is the antidote to solipsism. — Wayfarer
Compassion is the antidote to solipsism.
— Wayfarer
Is it? — Posty McPostface
[Wittgenstein's] style of thinking is at odds with the style that dominates our present era. His work is opposed, as he once put it, to “the spirit which informs the vast stream of European and American civilisation in which all of us stand.” Nearly 50 years after his death, we can see, more clearly than ever, that the feeling that he was swimming against the tide was justified. If we wanted a label to describe this tide, we might call it “scientism,” the view that every intelligible question has either a scientific solution or no solution at all. It is against this view that Wittgenstein set his face.
You can give specifications of plenty of things you can't see, like software algorithms, or the chemicals that simulate flavours, and so on. — Wayfarer
Not only physical objects are objects of experience; sensations, pains, emotions, thoughts may also be; in fact they must be objects of experience if we can speak sensibly and truly about them. — Janus
the specifications you can give are predominately given in visual terms. If not it would be spoken. Also, of course chemicals can be seen and can be tested which requires sight. — Janus
To me it seems that you are making certain assumptions about 'transcendental apperception' — Janus
And it is this unified awareness of self - always changing in form in some way while likewise always remaining unchanged in being unified - that can be happy or certain which, then, cannot be an object of awareness. — javra
There are blind scientists. — Wayfarer
I am simply discussing it, and I regard it as an important insight on the part of Kant. — Wayfarer
Agree with your analysis. — Wayfarer
In this connection and in relation to my discussion with Wayfarer I would say that the notion of "transcendental apperception" is a very sophisticated example of an attenuated analysis founded on the notion of the subject/object divide; and not something experienced prior to it. — Janus
Agree with your analysis. — Wayfarer
So do you think Javra is saying that the unchanging unity of apperception is experientially and/or metaphysically real, as opposed to being merely a formal stipulation? — Janus
Yes, but is the first person point of view really as it is usually characterized, or is that too a reification of an abstract conceptual understanding? — Janus
So do you think Javra is saying that the unchanging unity of apperception is experientially and/or metaphysically real, as opposed to being merely a formal stipulation? — Janus
I imagine the Buddhist notion of Nirvana to be the non-temporal instance wherein the first person point of view is no longer “constrained” so to speak by objects of awareness — javra
I think that's more like a description of the jhana states of 'neither perception nor non perception' and the like, which are part of the Buddhist path, but not the final aim of it. — Wayfarer
the conceptual apparatus which interpret experience must be there already before we can even experience anything whatever. — 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.