If you mean that doing so doesn't diminish your own suffering or make it easier to handle and relate to, then yes I agree. But I only use it as an analogy - in the sense of "you never know if or when your situation may suddenly get better if you just hang on". That thought helped me the most when I was at my lowest moments in fact. — Agustino

I'm usually more pensive about what "better" will be than the suffering I already am experiencing, >:O

I don't know haha - could you explain this? — Agustino

The people who incessantly sing the praises of life have always been the most broken, shattered, and devastated of people in my experience. It has merely taken me a lot of patience and work in order to getting under someone's heart and realize that truth.

Augustine didn't actually fuck prostitutes. He fucked bitches though >:O - more specifically only one bitch got that honour - and many times at that :P — Agustino

I believe Augustine was, for a while, a member of a Platonic commune, so men and women were not limited to exclusive sex partners, and children were children of the commune rather than children of specific parents.

I'm usually more pensive about what "better" will be than the suffering I already am experiencing, >:O — Heister Eggcart

?? What do you mean what will be "better" than the suffering you are currently experiencing?

The people who incessantly sing the praises of life have always been the most broken, shattered, and devastated of people in my experience. It has merely taken me a lot of patience and work in order to getting under someone's heart and realize that truth. — Heister Eggcart

I agree about those who "incessantly" do so - that's a defence mechanism for them. But I believe there are more balanced views - not praising, nor being overly pessimistic about life.

I believe Augustine was, for a while, a member of a Platonic commune, so men and women were not limited to exclusive sex partners, and children were children of the commune rather than children of specific parents. — Metaphysician Undercover

What indication do you have that Augustine engaged in sex with more than one woman? This is certainly not mentioned in the Confessions, but it is certainly plausible. His grief was certainly not directed towards his promiscuity but rather towards his attitude of lust towards his partner. Given his struggle and his later evaluation of monogamy, I highly doubt that he engaged in sex with more than one woman.

Richard Feynman says... "nothing is mere" — Bitter Crank

Feynamn can say what Feynman will, what does Bitter Crank say? :P

More importantly, I don't remember anything actually of Augustine being part of a Platonic commune where men and women were not limited to exclusive sex partners... that is I believe false. He was only part of a Manichean commune, and they were quite against sex.

Now even in Plato's Republic, it was ONLY the guardians that were not to be limited to one sex partner, so they had no attachments, except to serving the community. They were meant to be celibate for the whole year, except only for a short period, where they would be promiscuous merely as a way to produce future guardians. Their lack of attachement was merely a sacrifice for a greater good - and this is important to note. If a society could exist without them, and function in order, then they wouldn't be needed.

People have this tremendous confusion that Plato would advocate promiscuity as some sort of "superior" way. That's bullshit. They haven't bothered to understand the Republic - and even my explanation merely scratches the surface - in truth the Republic is a symbol for the ordering of the human being.

?? What do you mean what will be "better" than the suffering you are currently experiencing? — Agustino

No, no, no. I just meant that I'm more apprehensive about the good things of the future, and less so about the bad.

What indication do you have that Augustine engaged in sex with more than one woman? This is certainly not mentioned in the Confessions, but it is certainly plausible. His grief was certainly not directed towards his promiscuity but rather towards his attitude of lust towards his partner. Given his struggle and his later evaluation of monogamy, I highly doubt that he engaged in sex with more than one woman. — Agustino

I think it was after he quit Manichaeism, and before he became a committed Christian, I believe when he was in Milan, he got involved in a Platonic commune. You know that Augustine had a very strong sexual appetite don't you? He spoke of that a few times.

I'm asking you, conceptually, how is it possible to speak of transcendence? — Agustino

In the Buddhist context, 'the Buddha' is one released from the cycle of birth, decay and death. That is what his 'awakening' consists of. Even though the Buddha's conception of Nirvāṇa is unique to him, it is arguably a form of what is called in Hinduism mokṣa, release or liberation, which is understood as the awakening from the spell of māyā and the realisation of the higher self.


The Buddha's awakening is expressed in verses such as:

Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.

House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of craving.

Dhp 153-4


What is 'the Unformed'? There is another verse, a doctrinal formulation of Nirvāṇa,

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

Ud 8.3

(Both translations from Access to Insight).

So in what sense is the transcendent a separate, instead of merely different, side of existence? — Agustino

Kant denied that 'knowledge of the transcendent' was possible, on the basis that knowledge is always structured according to the categories, intuitions, and so on, and so anything transcendent is by definition over our cognitive horizon or in some sense out-of-bounds.

Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it.

Schleiermacher identifies a distinct mode of self-consciousness, one in which all attempts to make the self into an object of consciousness—that is, all attempts to come to know the self—are set aside. When the self is made an object of study it becomes a phenomenon, and as such is treated as something that it is not, i.e. as an object of experience. But it is possible to simply be—to become quiescent, if you will - and simply be what one is rather than attempt to know what one is.

And in this place of cognitive stillness, one discovers in a direct experiential way an ultimate reality that cannot be conceptualized or made into an object of study. This is the domain of mystical experience—and even though it is ineffable (that is, even if it cannot be made into an object of knowledge) it brings with it a kind of insight or enlightenment. One may not be able to adequately put this experience into propositional terms that can be affirmed as true, but that doesn’t mean one hasn’t in some sense encountered noumenal reality. One hasn’t encountered it as an object of experience (since that would turn it into a phenomenon). Rather, one encounters it in the way one experiences.

The challenge, then, is to attempt to articulate this encounter in a way that is meaningful to us--in other words, in a way that our cognitive minds can grasp and affirm. The encounter itself is what Schleiermacher calls “religion.”( Eric Reitan)

I would say that what John is referring to is this alternative 'way' of experience. That is something found in all kinds of literature, myth, allegory, and so on. Many of the Zen anecdotes signify awakening (satori) to this other cognitive mode (seeing the world anew, etc.)

Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning — Agustino

I admire Frankl, there was always a copy of that book in the home I grew up in.

• Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
• Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
• We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or at least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering.

The human spirit is referred to in several of the assumptions of logotherapy, but the use of the term spirit is not "spiritual" or "religious". In Frankl's view, the spirit is the will of the human being. The emphasis, therefore, is on the search for meaning, which is not necessarily the search for God or any other supernatural being. Frankl also noted the barriers to humanity's quest for meaning in life. He warns against "...affluence, hedonism, [and] materialism..." in the search for meaning.

I think Frankl's philosophy is implicitly spiritual, but that it is necessary to differentiate it from religion, because of the way religion is understood, defined and fought over in Western culture. To say something is 'religious' is to immediately embody it in a particular matrix of meaning with all of the associated baggage; he had to keep it out of that domain.

Considering most animals are incapable of committing suicide, and considering evolution (usually) has no strict cut-offs, I don't think it's controversial to think we aren't the only organisms on Earth who are conscious of "death" and fear it.

You know that Augustine had a very strong sexual appetite don't you? He spoke of that a few times. — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, but once again, at least I myself saw no indication that he was ever unfaithful to his mistress (whom he engaged in much sexual relations with before even becoming a Manichean). He was troubled by the fact the he could not give up his sexual desire, and was ruled by it - that much is for sure. Also the Neoplatonism Augustine got interested after his Manichean phase already had a Christian tinting, so I would doubt that he suddenly became promiscuous in that phase when he had never been before - and I would also doubt that that community encouraged him to be promiscuous.

No, no, no. I just meant that I'm more apprehensive about the good things of the future, and less so about the bad. — Heister Eggcart

Hmm - personally I tend to just be open to the future, hopeful, but not expecting. But I would say I'm certainly hopeful in my attitude towards the future. But if it doesn't go my way, it doesn't go my way - in certain situations, there's not much you can do. I don't expect it to go my way. In fact my approach is quite strange - I hope for the best, but expect the worst :-O

So are animals aware of death, and if so, do they fear death, the same as humans do? Or is fear of death a particularly human affair? — Agustino

Here are a couple of recent pieces from national geographic about elephants, and about whales and dolphins. While there's a certain anthropomorphism in the reporting, I think it's likely that intelligent animals other than humans also ponder on death and loss.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/elephants-mourning-video-animal-grief/

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-find-whales-and-dolphins-mourn-their-dead-too

In the Buddhist context, 'the Buddha' is one released from the cycle of birth, decay and death. That is what his 'awakening' consists of. Even though the Buddha's conception of Nirvāṇa is unique to him, it is arguably a form of what is called in Hinduism mokṣa, release or liberation, which is understood as the awakening from the spell of māyā and the realisation of the higher self. — Wayfarer

Yes, but given the Mahayana non-duality of Nirvana and Samsara - one is already enlightened, otherwise they could never "become" enlightened. It's just about becoming who they already are. The cycle of birth, growth, decay and death - one has already escaped the cycle, one is just ignorant of it. For if they had not escaped, there would be no possibility of escape.

Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it. — Wayfarer

I don't buy this. It depends how the boundary is known - if the boundary is known from the inside, then one just knows the boundary - and can only use the boundary to infer what "outside" would be. Consider the eye - do you see the limits of your visual field? Of course not! You don't perceive even boundaries, I was wrong before. So I disagree with the notion that there is any such "outside".

And in this place of cognitive stillness, one discovers in a direct experiential way an ultimate reality that cannot be conceptualized or made into an object of study. — Wayfarer

But it's not just ultimate reality - it's just simple reality which is like this. Concepts are mental divisions and categorisations of phenomena - they're never the phenomena themselves - a map is never the territory.

Rather, one encounters it in the way one experiences. — Wayfarer

So ontologically there is no transcendent - nothing that is beyond this reality.

I admire Frankl, there was always a copy of that book in the home I grew up in.

Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or at least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering. — Wayfarer

I share your admiration

I think Frankl's philosophy is implicitly spiritual, but that it is necessary to differentiate it from religion, because of the way religion is understood, defined and fought over in Western culture. To say something is 'religious' is to immediately embody it in a particular matrix of meaning with all of the associated baggage; he had to keep it out of that domain. — Wayfarer

I disagree that the word spiritual has transcendent meaning. I do agree that there is a spiritual side to life, but it is immanent, within reality. Consider that if it wasn't so - then we would never be able to access it, for we would never be able to "escape" our own reality. We can access it precisely because Nirvana IS Samsara. That's why I don't appreciate your bashing of materialism and atheism - those two are actually not contrary to enlightenment at all... at least they aren't necessarily so. The way they are understood today in the West is a different story though - instead of trying to get rid of them, you should try to re-evaluate them, and bring back original atheism and materialism.

one is already enlightened, otherwise they could never "become" enlightened. — Agustino

That is an 'urban myth' based on a misreading. It is used by lots of pseudo-gurus to sell new-age books.

I disagree that the word spiritual has transcendent meaning. — Agustino

We plainly understand the word differently.

I am generally puzzled by your take on philosophy. To me, in basic terms, philosophy is about the discernment of a truth which is not obvious, and which not everyone knows. In traditional philosophy, those who know these truths are philosophers, and they're different from the hoi polloi. That is straight out of Plato, it is not my innovation. I know it is very non-PC.

But you find something very similar in Buddhism:

From the Mahayana point of view, beings are divisible into two heads: those that are enlightened and those that are ignorant. The former are called Buddhas including also Bodhisattvas, Arhats, and Pratyekabuddhas while the latter comprise all the rest of beings under the general designation of bala or balaprithagjana—bala meaning "undeveloped", "puerile", or "ignorant", and prithagjana "people different" from the enlightened, that is, the multitudes, or people of ordinary type, whose minds are found engrossed in the pursuit of egotistic pleasures and unawakened to the meaning of life. This class is also known as Sarvasattva, "all beings" or sentient beings. The Buddha wants to help the ignorant, hence the Buddhist teaching and discipline.

....
Life as it is lived by most of us is a painful business, for we have to endure much in various ways. Our desires are thwarted, our wishes are crushed, and the worst is that we do not know how to get out of this whirlpool of greed, anger, and infatuation. We are at the extreme end of existence opposed to that of the Buddha. How can we leap over the abyss and reach the other shore?
The Mahayana diagnosis of the conditions in which all sentient beings are placed is that they are all nursed by desire (trishna) as mother who is Accompanied by pleasure (nandi) and anger (raga), while ignorance (avidya) is father. To be cured of the disease, therefore, they must put an end to the continuous activities of this dualistic poisoning. When this is done, there is a state called emancipation (vimoksha) which is full of bliss. The Buddhist question is thus: "How is emancipation possible?" And here rises the Mahayana system of philosophy. — Suzuki

Whereas you say - what 'emancipation'? There is only ordinary existence, those who think there is something beyond it are deluded.

That is an 'urban myth' based on a misreading. It is used by lots of pseudo-gurus to sell new-age books. — Wayfarer

How could they become enlightened if they aren't so already? Do they jump from one reality to another transcendent one? They are ignorant of the fact that they are enlightened - their very seeking for something special is the problem.

Whereas you say - what 'emancipation'? There is only ordinary existence, those who think there is something beyond it are deluded — Wayfarer

Yes and rightfully so... What emancipation?! There's nothing to be emancipated of. It's their IGNORANCE which makes them think there is something to be emancipated of. They are raising the dust themselves and then complaining that they cannot see... Rather the question is how can they awaken to reality - as it is right here and now, and stop being trapped by their own ignorance? They are seeing demons because they are creating them.

So yes, the enlightened know something that the hoi polloi don't - they know that there is no emancipation - no emancipation is needed, just understanding.

The non obvious truth that you're looking for is that there is nothing to be emancipated of, while all the hoi polloi are looking to be emancipated from something.

It's a question of recognising that "the beyond" is only the world, meaning expressed by the world, which is what makes relevant to us-- our own well-being, life, joy, etc., is at stake when dealing in "the beyond." One does not escape the world, even in the most audacious literal notions of life that continues after death.

The "beyond" is always a better world-- one in which we live in virtue, without suffering, with loved ones,, with something that matters to us and is just. We are "saved " not by leaving the world, but rather by living a world which was better than before. Ordinary existence is what delivers the "beyond, " be it a elimination of despair (a new understanding the world matters) or a victory over death (a God exists who acts to give a on going transfinite life).

What is perceived by the intuitive intellect is not determinate or objective in the way that what is perceived by the senses or conceived by the rational intellect is. What is determinate or objective is finite or immanent; what is indeterminate or subjective is in-finite or transcendental. It is truly another dimension of experience, a transcendent dimension, compared to what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched and measured. Of course the immanent realm of sensory experience and rational intellection is suffused with this transcendental dimension, and would be literally nothing without it, so it is certainly not a question of "separation". That is your own projection and is not inherent in anything I have said.

There's nothing to be emancipated of — Agustino

Of course! That explains why there is really no need for a criminal code, or police for that matter, or the army, come to think of it. There is really no need for anyone to learn anything, as they already know what there is to know, right? There ought not to be any fear of harm, death, illness or disease, because these things aren't real, right? Why can't we simply see that? What is stopping us?

We are "saved " not by leaving the world, but rather by living a world which was better than before — TheWillowOfDarkness

Indeed. And by what principles do we make it better? Is it simply a matter of economic and technological progress?

Of course! That explains why there is really no need for a criminal code, or police for that matter, or the army, come to think of it. — Wayfarer

Why do you think this follows? We need a criminal code, police, army etc. for practical reasons of protecting ourselves. I honestly think that if the transcendent world mattered, we wouldn't be needing any of these because this world is an illusion and we should all be looking to transcend it anyway, so why would we even bother with it? We'd all become hermits like Buddha, abandon our family, and go live in isolated places among ascetics. But we do need them, precisely because Samsara isn't an illusion. I mean if Samsara was an illusion, maya, why would we need them?

There ought not to be any fear of harm, death, illness or disease, because these things aren't real, right? Why can't we simply see that? What is stopping us? — Wayfarer

Well what use fearing death? It's going to come whether you fear it or not. Sure, that sucks, but there isn't anything we can do about it. We can meditate until we're blue in the face, that isn't going to change whether we're going to die or not, is it? Maybe practical things will change that - research etc. but certainly not meditation. That's why I tell you that I don't understand how you expect the transcendent to help in these practical matters...

Why do you think this follows? We need a criminal code, police, army etc. for practical reasons of protecting ourselves. — Agustino

From what? The truth is obvious to everyone. That is what you keep saying. So, why doesn't it follow that everyone simply recognises this fact and acts accordingly?

We'd all become hermits like Buddha, abandon our family, and go live in isolated places among ascetics. — Agustino

Or, alternatively, found a world religion which became the basis of civilizations. Although, of course, according to you, nobody needs that, either, because we've already arrived.

From what? — Wayfarer

From other people, from animals that may attack our communities, etc.

The truth is obvious to everyone. That is what you keep saying. So, why doesn't it follow that everyone simply recognises this fact and acts accordingly? — Wayfarer

Because they are ignorant, as I have said. But how would their ignorance imply or necessitate a transcendent to cure? Ignorance is an immanent issue, just as understanding is. Why do you think they are issues of transcendence?

Although, of course, according to you, nobody needs that, either, because we've already arrived. — Wayfarer

No, according to me, there is nowhere to arrive with regards to the transcendent. We can improve things in the world - for example I can improve my relationship with my wife, or with my kids, or whatever - but such improvements require worldly methods - my relationship with my wife won't improve just because I sit cross-legged 5 hours a day, would it? Where is the transcendent needed? This is my question to you - what problems would the transcendent help us solve (that nothing else can help us), and how would it help us?

Where is the transcendent needed? — Agustino

'The transcendent' here is a cypher for 'the most excellent state of being'. In traditional philosophy, attainment of that state was the summum bonum, the highest good, and our 'raison d'être'. It is what all beings are striving towards, the fulfilment of existence.

Such ideas from the ancient traditions became subsumed into Christianity and thereafter depicted in accordance with dogmatic formulae of the faith. But they nevertheless were still thought to underwrite the social contract as well as individual morality.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, man is 'imago dei' and so fulfilling the requirements of the faith was also fulfilling the divine plan, and one of the characteristics that differentiated man from animals.

'The transcendent' here is a cypher for 'the most excellent state of being'. In traditional philosophy, attainment of that state was the summum bonum, the highest good, and our 'raison d'être'. It is what all beings are striving towards, the fulfilment of existence. — Wayfarer

So the transcendent is a state within reality then. If so, how is it transcendent?

Such ideas from the ancient traditions became subsumed into Christianity and thereafter depicted in accordance with dogmatic formulae of the faith. But they nevertheless were still thought to underwrite the social contract as well as individual morality.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, man is 'imago dei' and so fulfilling the requirements of the faith was also fulfilling the divine plan, and one of the characteristics that differentiated man from animals. — Wayfarer

But why are they practically and pragmatically needed? What is there more in the transcendent except do good and do no evil?

If you want the truth, I actually view your own transcendentalism as nihilistic as it evacuates any and all meaning from this world, and transports it to some fantasy, some Nirvana. Buddhism in its regular interpretations seems a nihilistic and ascetic religion. It doesn't see virtue as the best way to thrive in this world, but rather in some other world. Now I know you'll tell me that's not the correct interpretation, and so on - but the mere fact that such an interpretation arises is a problem. Why does Buddhism talk about anatta? That is a problem - from the very beginning it is a problem. I don't care that you can correct it through mental gymnastics and textual exegesis, it doesn't change the fact that there is a problem there which needs correction, which needs the "right" view, where of course the right view is the one you give. I have talked with quite a few Buddhists online, and the more I talk to them, and the more they explain Buddhism the harder it is to hide its nihilistic side. More and more complicated acts of mental gymnastic each and every time. The self is bad, and yada yada yada, you need to get rid of the self and attachment and yada yada yada, you need to sit facing a wall meditating cross-legged for 5 hours and day, you need to stop being attached to your wife because attachment is suffering, and other obviously sounding nonsense. Yes sure, this nonsense can be corrected and amended so that it makes some sense... but even the very basic fact that it needs to be corrected and amended is a problem. That's why Buddhism isn't mainly concerned with ethics - with doing right and avoiding wrong - but with the achievement of Nirvana! As if that mattered to anyone...

I much more prefer Daoism which is this worldly. In Daoism there is no other world. The Dao isn't transcendent. The Chinese were smart. For the Chinese virtue is maximising your power and capacity in this world - not renouncing the world and your attachments (unless you have to), but making the most of them.

Why do you think the progressives are latching onto Buddhism? Because Buddhism is fertile soil for their nihilism. I mean we should be careful, lest this evil of Buddhism befall our Western world, as it seems to have already done so. Definitely this isn't an escape from nihilism, but a full plunge into it.

Now I know you'll tell me that's not the correct interpretation — Agustino

That is certainly true.

Why do you think the progressives are latching onto Buddhism? Because Buddhism is fertile soil for their nihilism — Agustino

Well, that's not true, and secondly, I was not speaking of Buddhism per se. I was referring to the general idea of the 'higher truth', which I know you already reject (yet, strangely, I am the one accused of 'nihilism'). I would say that the idea of such 'higher truth' is represented in various philosophical traditions - Greek, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist amongst others. But obviously I am not being understood, and in addition, it is probably irrelevant to the topic, and another timely reminder to myself to stop wasting time arguing with strangers. So, bye for now, taking time out from Forums, may or may not be back in future.

That is certainly true. — Wayfarer

Tell that to these Buddhists:
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm
http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1891/what-is-the-precise-meaning-of-anatta
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-understand-the-nondual-nature-of-Buddhist-emptiness-sunyata
https://www.quora.com/Whats-your-understanding-of-the-Buddhist-anatta-doctrine-and-do-you-subscribe-to-it

And probably millions of others. The fact that a religion cannot clarify what it says to the point that even its followers do not know it, that's a very very big problem.

Well, that's not true — Wayfarer

What's not true? That progressives are latching onto Buddhism? Just try typing "buddhism" and "sexuality" into google, and let's have a look together in, say the top 10 results. In fact, even your favorite book "To Meet the Real Dragon" makes no notice - no notice at all - in the chapter "not to do wrong" in any of the 10 precepts of not doing wrong that it gives about sexual morality. But of course most traditional forms of Buddhism have a principle to do with sexual morality even in a list of FIVE precepts! Let's see, why is that? Is it because Buddhism is trying to appeal to a decadent mass of the public and thus doesn't want to tell the truth lest it scares them off? Is that how it is then? We'll masquerade the truth to gain adherents and followers! In fact scratch that! We'll change the truth if that's what it takes to get more followers! Sounds like a great idea to me - keep it up! (Y)

That Buddhism is fertile soil for Nihilism? Well that seems to be proven by the fact that they are joining it no?

yet, strangely, I am the one accused of 'nihilism' — Wayfarer

Not you personally, but some of the views you recommend.

I would say that the idea of such 'higher truth' is represented in various philosophical traditions - Greek, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist amongst others. — Wayfarer

The very idea of a "higher truth" vitiates all the lower truths of meaning. That's why I say that it is nihilistic. If there is a higher truth, then these lower truths don't matter.

But obviously I am not being understood — Wayfarer

Well let's see why are you not being understood? Is it because I'm acting in bad faith and despite your attempts to clarify and answer my questions I still refuse to engage with you? Or is it because you have repeatedly not answered even a single objection except by brushing it off?

and another timely reminder to myself to stop wasting time arguing with strangers. So, bye for now, taking time out from Forums, may or may not be back in future. — Wayfarer

Well do as you wish, but packing your stuff and going is certainly not going to solve any of your problems. This is very childish behaviour. If your philosophy is worth anything then it needs to withstand criticism - so far it seems that at the weakest objection it's crumbling - and when it's crumbling you pack your bags and run away. I don't mean to be harsh with you, but you have to understand that these are important matters, so we have to discuss them seriously. It's not my fault that you're getting easily upset. I'm not responsible for your inability to deal with criticism. You should be upset at yourself first of all, because it is you who is failing to adequately engage with all the questions and objections that are placed to you.

So I hope you take those matters into consideration. You may have some valuable insights, but you need to defend them and prove their worth, otherwise they will only remain your insights. And you shouldn't take philosophical discussions personally regardless of how heated they get. Anyway, all the best to you!

Okay Johnny, you're next. Wayfarer apparently couldn't handle it, so it seems he has decided to leave the forums. Let's see if your philosophy is weak coal or strong diamond!

What is perceived by the intuitive intellect is not determinate or objective in the way that what is perceived by the senses or conceived by the rational intellect is. — John

Okay yes.

What is determinate or objective is finite or immanent; what is indeterminate or subjective is in-finite or transcendental — John

How does this follow? What does being determinate or objective have to do with (1) being finite, and (2) being immanent?

It is truly another dimension of experience, a transcendent dimension, compared to what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched and measured — John

But in what sense is this the case? Hearing for example is also another dimension of experience compared to seeing. Why isn't one of these transcendent then?

Of course the immanent realm of sensory experience and rational intellection is suffused with this transcendental dimension, and would be literally nothing without it, so it is certainly not a question of "separation" — John

Okay so if the transcendent doesn't refer to something that is ontologically separate, in what way, again, is it transcendent? And what notion of transcendence are you employing? The Cartesian one, or?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer, did you plagiarise this from Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it.

Does anyone here see a difference, because I certainly don't? No wonder that you couldn't explain it!

I read the entry. On that basis, not the kind of writer I'm going to study. Life's too short. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer, did you plagiarise this from Wikipedia? — Agustino

Agu, do you even know what plagiarism is? Here, let me tell you:

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

...wait....what have I just done? :-#

...wait....what have I just done? :-# — Heister Eggcart

I don't understand. Hasn't Wayfarer stolen the language, words, ideas and expressions found in that Wikipedia sentence and attributed it as part of his own post, without making note that it's not his?