Probably not. But still it should have its own "way". — dimosthenis9

You have a point though. I completely forgot about the order that the universe evinces. Nevertheless, life can be taken as one long process of slow decay. The universe could be like that it - breaking down but ever so slowly, so slowly that we mistake it for order.

Ah - yes, two threads on much the same topic. Necver a mod around when you need one...

Is it all a 'wild goose chase'? Is it all a mixture of 'bad philosophy', and running round in circles literally, or on various threads about 'truth', the existence of God etc? There are many threads tackling the same issues, and they keep going on, which shows how tricky some of the areas of thought are. — Jack Cummins

I used to believe in the truth but, even though I never really got down to seeking it in earnest, I look around and listen to what others have to say - not very encouraging reports from those who did devote their lives to the search for the truth. Isn't it better then to not look for something that doesn't exist?

So you've had a play with Wittgenstein's thinking a bit. What would he make of this, do you think?

Truth is about propositions; but perhaps there are two games, one mundane, in being "of this world", the other profound to the point of incomprehensibility.

What do you think now?

So you've had a play with Wittgesntein's thinking here. What would he make of this, do you think?

Truth is about propositions; but perhaps there are two games, one mundane, in being "of this world", the other profound to the point of incomprehensibility.

What do you think now? — Banno

Wittgenstein? Why, he would've said this whole discussion is pointless if it depended on meaning as essence but, speaking for myself, he mistakes the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. Perhaps there's no moon and possibly the moon is totally irrelevant - drops out of consideration as it were. :chin:

Well, I know that you call me 'truthseeker' and, to some extent that is true, but, at other times, I do query such a quest. To a large extent, I do approach philosophy as if it were a 'religion', but I know that it is not. So, I just would like to read as much philosophy and discuss it in the best possible way, and perhaps this may be the most approximate way of finding 'truth'. Looking at issues from many angles may be important rather than being locked into one fixed position because 'truth' may be about seeing beyond personal biases as far as possible.

Why, he would've said this whole discussion is pointless — TheMadFool

Yes, he would have; yet for him, nothing was more important than how one should live one's life.

Can you imagine how these apparently conflicting notions might be reconciled?

I used to believe in the truth but, even though I never really got down to seeking it in earnest, I look around and listen to what others have to say - not very encouraging reports from those who did devote their lives to the search for the truth. — TheMadFool

In the ancient world, which was real up until about the day before yesterday, those who realised the truth were fêted as sages, but they were always scarce, and now can't be heard above the hubbub of the masses and their demonic gadgetry.

~~

In the ancient world ... — Wayfarer

... it was once said 'In the future everyone will be a sophist for at least 15 minutes.' :eyes:

I just would like to read as much philosophy and discuss it in the best possible way, and perhaps this may be the most approximate way of finding 'truth'. — Jack Cummins

:up: "Finding" criteria for truth.

The real is where it's @, Fool. :wink: :point:

the other profound to the point of incomprehensibility. — Banno

Still exists though.Being incomprehensive for humanity (yet at least) doesn't make it disappear.
There are two games indeed.

I was just reading your post from yesterday and I do agree that religious systems often claim authority on the basis of 'hidden truths'. That does make it different from the general approach of philosophy, which is usually about the tools of rationality to enable rational thinking, by mystifying in the form of 'the hidden'.

... by mystifying in the form of 'the hidden'. — Jack Cummins

???

I am not sure what you are questioning exactly. Is it the idea that religious perspectives speak of 'hidden' reality? What I mean is that in many religious viewpoints there is thought to be some kind of 'unseen' dimension, underlying everything. In particular, it could be argued that in many current philosophical discussions about consciousness there is the idea that unconsciousness is an absolute. In contrast, within many religious perspectives this is not the way in which it is seen. There is believed to be some inherent purpose behind manifest reality, such as a divine presence and even the unconsciousness present at death is not seen as complete nothingness.

Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present. — The Myth of Sisyphus & Other Essays

I appreciate the clarification. "The unseen" (occulted) isn't very parsimonious though. In the main, too many folks believe in a great many things which have nothing to do with reality or their own existences – this or that placebo/fetish du jour. It's an exaptation (re: simulating predictions) of the ordinary workings of our brains: confabulating such as e.g. "seeing faces in clouds"; no drug is as potently self-serving as the illusion of knowledge (i.e. superstition, hope) or as self-defeating in the long-run.

I prefer descriptors voluntary & involuntary to the notions of "conscious" & "unconscious"; what is often called "hidden reality" is simply shit made up involuntarily that helps blunt the depressive impact of ceaseless cycles (pulse) of "boredom and pain" with a mirage of "direction" which many voluntarily go on to interpret as "purpose" (e.g. "divine presences", "unseen dimensions underlying everything", etc). Thus, the (self-abnegating) religious mindset: denial that 'here and now' only ever matters here and now (re: the absurd .. ); denial of ephemerality and oblivion (re: the tragic ...); denial of nature (re: the fallibilistic (i.e. evidence, facticity)). This is in stark contrast to a (non-academic / non-Scholastic) philosophical orientation to existence. 'The numinous', for instance, can be 'found' more reliably – healthily – in encountering the strange within the familiar (or absence pulsing within presence ... "infinity in a grain of sand" re: poetry, music, art, psychoactives, friendships ... ) rather than via denial, such as some "invisible" never never world "beyond appearances".

Philosophy shows us how to put childish things away and think for ourselves by thinking against our make-beliefs, not merely because they are false but also, more significantly, because it's been millennia since religions, etc have ceased working as they originally had, thereby mostly crippling (hindering) further human development since, which philosophy has ever strived to exorcize (with limited success ) from the human psyche. :death: :flower:

edit:

It's "the love of god"/Ego or "the love of wisdom"/Reality.

Confession, they say, can be good for your soul.

I found confession terrible because the things which I felt were my sins were just too complicated to explain in a little confession box, so I was extremely vague. I used to get so nervous before going. I even got nervous going to communion, in case I dropped the communion wafer. My mum and I also had a longstanding joke that wouldn't it be awful to drop the collection plate. I don't know how you ever coped being an altar boy, but you are probably less nervous.

Religion merely gives advice about a slow process, philosophy tells it straight.

I'm a philosopher, I'm just telling you straight.