The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. — Harry Hindu
Logic reduces to reasons. If you don't have reasons, or your reasons don't support the conclusion (as in a contradiction), then you simply aren't being logical. — Harry Hindu
Meanwhile, the people who have successfully suppressed the mystical from their lives will see those discussing the mystical as speaking nonsense, insisting that they're talking about something which cannot be talked about. It's a sort of taboo. It's not that we cannot talk about it, it's that they have been trained not to talk about it and therefore have not developed the means for talking about it. — Metaphysician Undercover
This may be slightly off-topic, but I wonder if these experiences can be described as a combination of pronoia and derealization. To understand each other we surely must grasp something somewhere. — Zophie
Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible? — Harry Hindu
I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. Just go back and read the above. It is incoherent - contradictory - to claim that mysticism is inexpressible while at the same time trying to express it. If that is truth to you, then we might as well part ways.
It's not that you find linear thinking difficult. You just don't like the answers it gives. You want to feel special - important - and logic doesn't give you that. Your feelings are in conflict with the conclusions of logical, reasonable thinking. — Harry Hindu
These two are distinctly contradictory. If credibility is obtained through reaching desired results, then just as the thing desired is something personal, than so is credibility. So you would have no choice but to take the person's word for it because only that person knows what is desired and whether the method fulfils that desire.
I suggest however, that it is the second statement which is wrong. Credibility is produced from proof, logical demonstration, and justification. It cannot be a matter of producing the desired results, or else people would always be fudging the evidence, making deceptive demonstrations for the sake of producing the desired results, and this is the very opposite of credible. This is why credibility is based in a judgement of truth, rather than desired results, which is personal. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing. — Harry Hindu
Stab a baby in the leg with a knife and see if it ‘understands’ pain. According to what you said I guess not because it can’t articulate it with words. — I like sushi
I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone. — I like sushi
That's your opinion.That seems to me to be a bit of a non-starter. Everyone is always talking about their own opinion of whatever it is they are talking about. You can purport and pretend to objectivity, this aspect can never really be discounted. You are splitting hairs. — Pantagruel
So is this Gilbert Harman's opinion of logic, or is he getting at what logic actually is?Edit: ie. https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/RandL.pdf - why logic is not reason and vice versa — Pantagruel
Exactly - a relationship between reasons (premises) and conclusions.Moreover, logic does not reduce to reasons: logic is a system of formalized relationships. — Pantagruel
It’s like love. — I like sushi
If any part of the brain is involved it isn't the neocortex and I believe the neocortex is exactly what mysticism wants to engage although via different methods. — TheMadFool
The problem is that if we can only ever talk about our opinions, then what is the relationship between our opinions and what they are about? — Harry Hindu
That is one of the core questions of epistemology isn't it? We are constantly fighting a battle to find a universally valid methodology for stepping outside of subjectivity. The scientific method is one, and it works well, to the extent the the subject matter is amenable. Systems theory uses a more abstract set of fundamental entities, but follows methods that are still essentially scientific. — Pantagruel
But according to the other statement you asserted, someone else only has access to their opinion of your opinions, and what they would find useful is their own opinion, not your opinion, so then no one can really ever find use in any else's opinion because all they have access to is their own opinion.Possibly they will be useful to someone else though. — Pantagruel
You could start solving it by backing off the statement that all we ever talk about is our own opinions because it leads to an infinite regress and doesn't seem like you actually believe it.I didn't pretend to solve it, I just situated it in a context of rational discussion. — Pantagruel
I don’t know what that means.
I was just trying to point out that words are more pliable when the subject matter has little substance. So suggesting ‘understanding’ is only possible if it can be articulated is a hard sell (for me at — I like sushi
People are looking for answers to questions that science just hasn't been able to answer yet. Some questions have been answered by science and many people don't find those answers appealing because it doesn't make them feel important, or have a purpose. When their own culture doesn't provide appealing answers, then they look to different angles to answer the question. The assumption, though, is that our answers should be appealing. When you don't like an answer to a question, then is your dislike sufficient reason assert that it is an non-answer to then keep looking somewhere else, or with different means?Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’. — I like sushi
I'm not in support of mysticism. I think mysticism is nothing more than a bunch of people who've failed to understand something, here the truth about reality, the normal way, using reason, and are trying out alternatives and the only tangible results have been soft-spoken, half-asleep, long-bearded individuals with a cult following. — TheMadFool
Being happy is one thing. Being knowledgeable is something else. It bothers me when someone confuses one with the other and expects me to have the same confusion, by not being clear about what their goal is - knowledge or happiness.Assuming these individuals and their 'cults' are genuinely happy, why does this bother you? — Tzeentch
This is not to deny anything about religion, or God, but rather they are not of importance within the practice. Others may disagree. — Punshhh
Mysticism, as I have been saying all along, involves an arational, not irrational, mode of thinking and that's going easy on it. — TheMadFool
Exactly. Peyote is often taken to cause mystical experiences in the context of a religious ceremony, but if I take some Peyote for the psychedelic experience and for mental experimentation, I don't think of it as a mystical experience.As I understand it most recorded mystical experiences are given within a religious or cultural framework. — Janus
Yes, but in my humble opinion, I wanted to keep things as general as possible. A knife's credibility, taking into account its purpose, is all about the results we get when using it. If it cuts well then it gains credibility points, no? — TheMadFool
If it can't be expressed (in words), it can't be understood. — TheMadFool
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.