I was fairly lucky in the start of my philosophical studies because I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster, and it covered many different areas of philosophy, although a lot of social science. I also met so many interesting people, although we had all just left school. I have studied and worked in London for some time, but apart from a couple of people, I think that most people think that I am ridiculous reading the books I do. When I was moving last year one of my flatmates suggested I should throw my books in the bin. But, I am glad that I moved a significant portion of them because that was just before I found this site.

I think it we live in a society which values cars, houses and is extremely materialistic. But, I do believe that there are many people who do not really hold on to materialistic values, but often they are probably isolated. I believe that we live in a very fragmented culture.

Strangely, even though I am aware that Hegel's
'Phenomenology of Mind ' is not phenomenology in the sense that most people understand it I have a copy and I think that it may be one of the next ones I read. I have read some of, but not all of 'The Philosophy of History', and definitely believe that Hegel is essential.

I think that what you are saying is a similar kind of thought to what I was thinking about when I began the thread a couple years days ago. It is the whole puzzling area arising from the personal embodied experience, looking outwards and engaging with the so-called objective world of reality.

I think that part of this is what is discussed as the intersubjective aspect of existence. But, it is not merely about interaction with other human beings, and shared meanings. Aspects of life are inanimate and others are animate, but we are having to understand all these different parts, as well as the question of ultimate reality, and if that exists at all.

Thanks for your latest post.What you are saying, and Hadot's book does sound interesting because I think that we probably do need some kind of exercising of our minds or consciousness to understand reality. I am sure that this goes beyond all reading, even though it is worth reading books to see how others have found answers. However, the answers about the ultimates of reality are not actually in the books themselves, but have to be found in our consciousness

The goal of understanding the nature of reality, is probably illumination, or enlightenment. And, I am not sure that this is just the entitlement of those who are of any religious, or particular philosophical outlook. But, I do think that you are right to say that some kind of exercise, such as meditation is likely to help, Meditation is important, I believe, but it is not easy and I often find I procrastinate about practising it whereas I am sure that it is probably more important than many other forms of activity.

Yes, and I think there are different kinds intersubjective agreement as well. There is agreement of consensus (we agree that we agree) and there is agreement of understanding. I think that latter is far more substantial, in the sense that it perhaps transcends the limitations of symbolic meaning. One never quite knows to what extent meanings are truly shared...but having that as an ideal or goal is a start.

For me it's impossible for humans to realize the actual reality. The General Picture. Cause of the way they are made from nature. They just don't have the ability to realize it. It's like fishes. Their reality is only sea! They can't imagine what's going on out of it! So the whole "universe" for them is sea! I really believe that there must be many other dimensions but people can't "see" them. So human reality is only reality for humans. It is way too far than what reality actually might be. Human reality is just a matter of senses. That's how they perceive it and restricted for sure.

I was fairly lucky in the start of my philosophical studies because I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster, and it covered many different areas of philosophy, — Jack Cummins

Yes, we tend to speak of being “lucky”. But is it really just “luck”, or is there more to it? I think in my case it was definitely more than just luck. Philosophy, when properly understood, can be a true friend and an invaluable guide. And it connects you, at least in spirit, with a myriad of like-minded souls who have walked the same path for millennia …

When I was moving last year one of my flatmates suggested I should throw my books in the bin. But, I am glad that I moved a significant portion of them because that was just before I found this site. — Jack Cummins

I know the feeling. It can be tempting to throw books away but you can never know when you might need them again.

I think it we live in a society which values cars, houses and is extremely materialistic. But, I do believe that there are many people who do not really hold on to materialistic values, but often they are probably isolated. I believe that we live in a very fragmented culture. — Jack Cummins

That’s right. Society does seem to be turning more materialistic. But I think there is something in most or some of us that makes us strive to discover the spiritual side of life. Maybe this is part of a wider process intended to counteract cultural and spiritual fragmentation. This is also why I tend to be in two minds about multiculturalism. In a way it unifies cultures but in another it can also be a source of division.

To me, real is anything that has a limit - either in space OR time. Reality would be the set of all things that have a limit (in space OR time).

What you are saying, and Hadot's book does sound interesting because I think that we probably do need some kind of exercising of our minds or consciousness to understand reality. I am sure that this goes beyond all reading, even though it is worth reading books to see how others have found answers. However, the answers about the ultimates of reality are not actually in the books themselves, but have to be found in our consciousness — Jack Cummins

Yes, quite true! But, we have to find a way. (Hence my name!) There are many factors that will undermine that, one of which is making it bigger than it is.

Since I wrote that post, I've ordered a hard copy (not eBook) of Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life. I've signed up for an introductory session with The School of Practical Philosophy - not that I don't understand their curriculum, but mainly for fellowship. (There's a huge article on them in Wiki.) I intend to return to my own meditation practice, which has rather fallen by the wayside the last couple of years.

Anyway - that response was triggered by your remark about 'reality as lived'. It is very simple but often overlooked point - no matter what the fantastic complexity of mathematical decriptions of forces and fields, reality is first and foremost lived. This being a philosophy forum, that is the important point to remember.

I can see the danger of making questions bigger than they are, and I think that it about seeing the limitations of philosophy as a discipline. However, I think that your whole approach of philosophy as lived experience is important. My own view is that philosophy needs expanding, rather than becoming caught up in models from the past, or even the most current models of science and mathematics, in order to embrace the whole dimension of living experience.

I am not convinced that life is about luck entirely, because there are so many aspects underlying experience, but I do wonder whether these will ever be addressed fully, even within philosophy.

My own view is that philosophy needs expanding ... in order to embrace the whole dimension of living experience. — Jack Cummins

Elaborate on this. 'Speculation and concept-(re)creating/problematizing', while at best grounded in sciences and lived experiences, already extend further than these grounds. What else do you have in mind?

It's unpopular, but it's the best response to your question. Here is an excerpt from Austin's Other Minds.

1. Reality
If you ask me, 'How do you know it's a real stick?' 'How do you know it's really bent?' ('Are you sure he's really angry?'), then you are querying my credentials or my facts (it's often uncertain which) in a certain special way. In various special, recognised ways, depending essentially upon the nature of the matter which I have announced myself to know, either my current experiencing or the item currently under consideration (or uncertain which) may be abnormal, phoney. Either I myself may be dreaming, or in delirium, or under the Influence of mescal, &c.: or else the item may be stuffed, painted, dummy, artificial, trick, freak, toy, assumed, feigned, &c.: or else again there's an uncertainty (it's left open) whether I am to blame or it is-mirages, mirror images, odd lighting effects, &c.

These doubts are all to be allayed by means of recognised procedures (more or less roughly recognised, of course), appropriate to the particular type of case. There are recognised ways of distinguishing between dreaming and waking (how otherwise should we know how to use and to contrast the words?), and of deciding whether a thing is stuffed or live, and so forth. The doubt or question 'But is it a real one?' has always (must have) a special basis, there must be some 'reason for suggesting' that it isn't real, in the sense of some specific way, or limited number of specific ways, in which it is suggested that this experience or item may be phoney. Sometimes (usually) the context makes it clear what the suggestion is : the goldfinch might be stuffed but there's no suggestion that it's a mirage, the oasis might be a mirage but there's no suggestion it might be stuffed. If the context doesn't make it clear, then I am entitled to ask 'How do you mean? Do you mean it may be stuffed or
what? What are you suggesting?' The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - 'not what' I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real'.

Knowing it's a 'real' goldfinch isn't in question in the ordinary case when I say I know it's a goldfinch: reasonable precautions only are taken. But when it is called in question, in special cases, then I make sure it's a real goldfinch in ways essentially similar to those in which I made sure it was a goldfinch, though corroboration by other witnesses plays a specially important part in some cases. Once again the precautions cannot be more than reasonable, relative to current intents and purposes. And once again, in the special cases just as in the ordinary cases, two further conditions hold good:

(a) I don't by any means always know whether it's one or not. It may fly away before I have a chance of testing it, or of inspecting it thoroughly enough. This is simple enough: yet some are prone to argue that because I sometimes don't know or can't discover, I never can.

(b) 'Being sure it's real' is no more proof against miracles or outrages bf nature than anything else is or, sub specie humanitatis, can be. If we have made sure it's a goldfinch, and a real goldfinch, and then in the future it does something outrageous (explodes, quotes Mrs. Woolf, or what not), we don't say we were wrong to say it was a goldfinch, we don't know what to say. Words literally fail us: 'What would you have said?' 'What are we to say now?' 'What would you say?' When I have made sure it's a real (not stuffed, corroborated by the disinterested, &c.) then I am not 'predicting' in saying it's a real goldfinch, and in a very good sense I can't be proved wrong whatever happens. It seems a serious mistake to suppose that language (or most language, language about real things) is 'predictive' in such a way that the future can always prove it wrong. What the future can always do, is to make us revise our ideas about goldfinches or real goldfinches or anything else.

Perhaps the normal procedure of language could be schematized as follows. First, it is arranged that, on experiencing a complex of features C, then we are to say 'This is C' or 'This is a C'. Then subsequently, the occurrence either of the whole of C or of a significant and characteristic part of it is, on one or many occasions, accompanied or followed in definite circumstances by another special and distinctive feature or complex of features, which maces it seem desirable to revise our ideas: so that we draw a distinction between 'This looks like a C, but in fact is only a dummy, &c.' and 'This is a real C (live, genuine, &c.)'. Henceforward,we can only ascertain that it's a real C by ascertaining that the special feature or complex of features is present in the appropriate circumstances. he old expression
'This is a C' will tend as heretofore to fail to draw any distinction between 'real, live, &c.' and 'dummy, stuffed, &c.' If the special distinctive feature is one which does not have to manifest itself in any definite circumstances (on application of some specific test, after some limited lapse of time, &c.) then it is not a suitable feature on whch to base a distinction between 'real' and 'dummy, imaginary, &c.' All we can then do is to say 'Some Cs are and-some aren't, some do and some don't: aid it may be very interesting or important whether they are or aren't, whether they do or don't, but they're all Cs, real Cs, just the same'.' Now if the special feature is one which must appear in (more or less) definite circumstances, then 'This is a real C' is not necessarily predictive: we can, in favourable cases, make sure of it. — J. L. Austin

My bolding.

This serves to undermine the metaphysical rambling that constitute the bulk of this thread.


...and so on. The metaphysical conundrum dissipates.

Of course, I come from my own limited experience, but it does seem to me, from reading and experience that often the debates in philosophy can be about repetition of the ideas of the past. I do not see any answers, but do believe that the exploration of lived experience is extremely important.

An answer is just a question's way of raising other (unbegged) questions, y'know.

Thanks for your detailed response. I will look at it tomorrow and reply further, because it is is after 1am.

To most it would be (not by one's own acknowledgement but by pure fact) what is gathered by the senses being immediately interpreted by the mind and little more. There is remembrance, there is foresight. But none the less confined to the workings of one's own mind.

For me, it is anything but this.

Like most people, I discriminate carefully between the project that attempts to understand reality (which is fraught and speculative) versus living in the 'real world' (which has unavoidable outcomes). I have no choice but to imagine that I inhabit a physical world.

Sure, reality may consist of waves with discrete blobs of energy floating upon it... But at an important level this is insignificant to a life lived. I need to watch the traffic when I cross the road. I need to take medication when I am sick. I need to behave as though physicalism is true. I can't get out of this and to a great extent it doesn't really matter if there is, let's say, a Platonic realm. The case for contemplative practices or mystical insights to transcend (even in a modest way) our corporeal experience don't seem compelling.

It also seems to me that spiritual pursuits so often are a form of abstracted status seeking - all that talk of 'higher level' things - accessible only to special states or special people. It's like crass materialism has been sublimated into a type of crass higher consciousness virtue signalling.

Suppose you had a "finest grain of reality measure" on the end of a stick, and you pocked everything with it and you found everything you poked is made of the same stuff, including yourself! Suppose this stuff was cheese :smile: and suppose somebody came along and started to tell you that reality is made of chocolate cake! Wouldn't you think this person was somewhat out of touch with reality, given you cant make chocolate cake with cheese? And after you explained this to them they still maintained chocolate was the fundamental stuff, would it be reasonable to think this person willfully ignorant?

We have a “finest grain of reality measure” at CERN. 51 Hedrons and counting it is still finding particles with mass, but the smart money is on a Wavicle of sorts . It seems assured given E=mc2.
This would mean energy and information is the fundamental stuff. You , me, J.L Austin, and all of his thoughts and works, including everything else is made of information and energy – the same stuff we exchange right now at this very moment as we converse. I wonder how you would reconcile your paradigm with that?


Physics based understanding is initially difficult and tedious. I can relate to your aversion. But towards the end of the tunnel, the light is particularly bright. If information and energy is fundamental, then we are made of information and energy. When we die the information is not preserved, but the energy is! It goes on to create other form. I would ask anybody – what do they feel themselves to be – the information? or the energy? :chin:

I would like to point out that in phenomenology it is the feeling that creates reality. When information is integrated and a corresponding feeling is felt, we have an experience - this we understand to be reality. So what is your feeling, what are you truly - are you the information, or the energy? :smile:

I wonder how you would reconcile your paradigm with that? — Pop

I don't see any problem.

Or do you think that CERN results mean that the chair on which you sit is not real?

Or do you think that CERN results mean that the chair on which you sit is not real? — Banno

It is a chair now, before that it was a tree, before that it was dirt, before that it was rock, lava, etc. But it will always be information and energy.

You are nothing but star dust.

Yeah, we are nothing but that. :up: Its not such a bad thing to be?

Can you give a clear answer - if it is energy and information, does that mean it is not a chair?

Can you give a clear answer - if it is energy and information, does that mean it is not a chair? — Banno

Of course it is a chair Banno. But fundamentally it is made of the same stuff as you and me. If you want to engage with reality you have to reconcile that fact.

So it's really information , and not a chair? But at the same time it is a chair?

Can't it really be a chair, and (assuming your comments about CERN are correct...) really be information and energy?

So it's really information , and not a chair? But at the same time it is a chair?

Can't it really be a chair, and (assuming your comments about CERN are correct...) really be information and energy? — Banno

We can call it a chair, or we can call it a stool, or we can call it firewood - my wife calls it an eyesore, but it will always be information and energy. So what is the reality of what it is? Which of those realities that it can assume / be put to, is its reality - I think the constituent one is information and energy - it will never cease to be this.

Consider:

48. Let us apply the method of §2 to the account in the Theaetetus. Consider a language-game for which this account is really valid. The language serves to represent combinations of coloured squares on a surface. The squares form a chessboard-like complex. There are red, green, white and black squares. The words of the language are (correspondingly) “R”, “G”, “W”, “B”, and a sentence is a sequence of these words. Such sequences describe an arrangement of squares in the order

[three-by-three grid numbered one to nine]

And so, for instance, the sentence “RRBGGGRWW” describes an arrangement of this sort:

Here the sentence is a complex of names, to which a complex of elements corresponds. The primary elements are the coloured squares. “But are these simple?” a I wouldn’t know what I could more naturally call a ‘simple’ in this language-game. But under other circumstances, I’d call a monochrome square, consisting perhaps of two rectangles or of the elements colour and shape, “composite”. But the concept of compositeness might also be extended so that a smaller area was said to be ‘composed’ of a greater area and another one subtracted from it. Compare the ‘composition’ of |24| forces, the ‘division’ of a line by a point outside it; these expressions show that we are sometimes even inclined to conceive the smaller as the result of a composition of greater parts, and the greater as the result of a division of the smaller.

But I do not know whether to say that the figure described by our sentence consists of four or of nine elements! Well, does the sentence consist of four letters or of nine? a And which are its elements, the types of letter, or the letters? Does it matter which we say, so long as we avoid misunderstandings in any particular case?

What is the simple? What is real?

You want to say "it is a chair but it is really information and energy, but it is also really a chair..."

Because what it really is, is dependent on whether you want to shoot it down a particle accelerator or sit on it.

Edit: @Jack Cummins

What is the simple? What is real? — Banno

A chocolate cake made from cheese. :lol:

What is that? The chocolate cake/cheese thing was yours, not mine; you are the one who creates the chocolate cake made from cheese, if you insist that only one can be the case.