3. Knowledge (the holy grail of philosophy, excluding those philosophers who think aporia is more their thing) — Agent Smith

Both Aporia and Knowledge are pretty interesting states of mind but I want to put another element in these two: happiness. This is the real holy grail of philosophy if we take the Aristotle perspective. It is one of the main goals the humans always fought for.
Probably, thanks to knowledge and Aporia we can end up at being happy.

happiness — javi2541997

This is what I found on Wikipedia:

In Pyrrhonism aporia is intentionally induced as a means of producing ataraxia. — Wikiepedia

Achieving ataraxia is a common goal for Pyrrhonism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism, but the role and value of ataraxia within each philosophy varies in accordance with their philosophical theories.

Aporia is somehow supposed to (magically?) lead us directly to the doorstep of Epicurus (re: hedonism). How that's achieved is a mystery to me! Like I said, aporia is not exactly my idea of fun!

On balance, it's more painful than pleasurable, and I don't quite see how that's a description of equanimity, tranquility (ataraxia).

It appears that journey through ataraxia (the way of the warrior, bushido?) is, again somehow, supposed to end at eudaimonia aka happiness!

A fool is ignorant, a real fool is confused and who wouldn't want to live in paradise, a fool's paradise?

How that's achieved is a mystery to me! Like I said, aporia is not exactly my idea of fun! — Agent Smith

It is a mistery indeed and that's because it is very complex to achieve. We can say it is upon us what we consider as the path of Aporia (or doorstep) in terms of making or own decisions or choices.

On balance, it's more painful than pleasurable, and I don't quite see how that's a description of equanimity, tranquility (ataraxia). — Agent Smith

I never heard about ataraxia, and it is another interesting aspect. Probably we can say here that achieving tranquility is a very painful path to cross. But if we are only in our confort zone we would never experience the richness of life. Thus, we can be fools in a fool's land

It's etymological roots are impassable passage — Agent Smith

This is a more reliable indication of what the term means. Reasoning encounters a point beyond which it cannot go. A point at which we are confronted by our ignorance without a way to move past it to truth and knowledge.

Plato's dialogues typically end in aporia. In order to see this in a positive light we need to consider Socrates' "human wisdom", his knowledge of his ignorance. This means more than simply acknowledging that he does not know. It is an inquiry and examination into how best to live knowing that we do not know what is best.

Socrates' "human wisdom" ... an inquiry and examination into how best to live knowing that we do not know what is best. — Fooloso4

:up:

Aporia is somehow supposed to (magically?) lead us directly to the doorstep of Epicurus (re: hedonism). How that's achieved is a mystery to me! Like I said, aporia is not exactly my idea of fun! — Agent Smith

This is what came to mind when I read your first post - I have found, personally, that a confusing situation resolves itself when you give up, surrender, to the uncertainty. Alan Watts has a book called "The Wisdom of Insecurity." That surrender of will is part of many spiritual traditions. Looking in from the outside, it's always seemed to me that Zen practice is set up to frustrate practitioners and that enlightenment is a final surrender.

Reasoning encounters a point beyond which it cannot go. A point at which we are confronted by our ignorance without a way to move past it to truth and knowledge. — Fooloso4

I wonder if you are talking about the same thing I am.

I wonder if you are talking about the same thing I am. — T Clark

The limits of reason is a common theme. How one responds to that may differ. I don't think there is anything equivalent to enlightenment through surrender in Plato or Aristotle.

The limits of reason is a common theme. How one responds to that may differ. I don't think there is anything equivalent to enlightenment through surrender in Plato or Aristotle. — Fooloso4

For me, the question is whether the spiritual phenomena described in the two different philosophies represent the same, or similar, human experiences. I think they probably do.

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Is it truly aporia, or is it a case of finding oneself in a socioeconomic situation where one "far behind others"?
There is a difference between aporia, and the overwhelm that a particular person may feel upon realizing how much they in particular would need to do in order to barely measure up as an "average citizen".

This overwhelm also has the two elemetns
1. One doesn't know where to begin or where to end.
2. One is paralyzed as to what's one's next move.
but in this overwhelm, there are practical, tangible causes for the confusion and paralysis.

Reasoning encounters a point beyond which it cannot go. — Fooloso4

:up: Mu/Wu. Analysis paralysis, not exactly, but close enough for government work.

Plato's dialogues typically end in aporia. — Fooloso4

:up:

Much like all threads in this forum and others too I suppose. No resolution but more confusion.

It is an inquiry and examination into how best to live knowing that we do not know what is best. — Fooloso4

:up:

How does aporia bring about ataraxia and ataraxia lead to eudaimonia?

Mu!

Zen practice — T Clark

Mu/Wu!

Possible! Different illnesses, sometimes, have identical symptoms.

:ok:

I don't understand the question.

I don't understand the question. — 180 Proof

:chin:

You're touching on some very deep and difficult subjects.In the Socratic dialogues, 'aporia' were questions that didn't have a satisfactory answer, or for which apparently different answers were equally applicable (as Fooloso4 already said). But that kind of reasoned acknowledgement of not knowing something, doesn't really amount to ignorance.

And that word has two very different meanings in philosophy. Ignorance in the everyday sense plainly concerns some facts or states of affairs we don't know, or some knowledge or understanding we lack. But 'ignorance' in another sense also means lack of sagacity or wisdom, in Indic religions it means the absence of 'vidya' (that being true insight or wisdom). In that context, 'ignorance' is a condition of benightedness or foolishness that comes from not understanding what is real. (In Buddhist cultures, it is seen as the default condition of the 'puttajjana', the 'uneducated worldling', which sits rather uneasily with democratic liberalism.)

But there's another set of meanings altogether, which is communicated in classics such as 'the cloud of unknowing'. That is associated with the 'negative way' of contemplative meditation - self-emptying or putting aside all discursive thought and reasoning. There are elements of that in the Socratic attitude but it is not something that ought to be over-emphasised. You also find that in Taoism - 'he that knows it, knows it not, he that knows it not, knows it'.

Gnosis is another subject altogether. It doesn't really have a uniform or single definition, and can only be defined in the various contexts in which the word is used. You could say that gnosis consists of an insight into the nature of being which by default the ordinary man doesn't know, and which requires a cognitive (or meta-cognitive) shift in order to attain. Gnostics would typically describe their knowledge in terms of an insight into or penetration of a principle which liberates the knower from the vicissitudes of ignorance. But again it's a deep subject. Have a peruse of gnosis.org, there's a lot of source material there.

:up:

So ignorance is not simply a state of not knowing, but is to be construed as an absence of wisdom (vidya). The distinction between knowledge and wisdom clearly matter to the concept of aporia, it (aporia) being a term applicable to the wise fool. The wise fool is ignorant, yes, but s/he is, at the same time, much the wiser for it. What makes a wise fool both wise and fool? Pray tell.

The cloud of unknowing? Sounds interesting.

That is associated with the 'negative way' of contemplative meditation - self-emptying or putting aside all discursive thought and reasoning. — Wayfarer

I consider these meditative techniques as, inter alia, means of experiencing nonexistence while existing given how much existence to us seem completely predicated on thinking (about something) - we've been inured into believing that until and unless there's something (objects of thought) in the vessel (mind), the vessel (mind) doesn't exist. It's like being trapped in the middle of a dark room with only a football for company. One kicks the football and when it bounces off the walls of the room, one happily concludes "oh yes, there's a room, I'm in it." Without the football (thoughts), I would never have figured out that there's a room (the mind). Does the mind (the room) persist/exist even when there's no football (no thoughts)? That's the million dollar question insofar as philosophers of mind are concerned! I mentioned the so-called Mu/Wu mind state in Zen. Do you have any comments on that?

Gnosis, as appears in the OP, is simply knowledge. I'm aware that gnosis has a more specific meaning in some circles and am willing to discuss it. You compared gnosis to insight and I find that very appealing, somehow it feels right to me. It squares with your take on ignorance as not simply unknowing, but avidya (absence of wisdom), insight being a mark of wisdom in my humble opinion.

The wise fool is ignorant, yes, but s/he is, at the same time, much the wiser for it. — Agent Smith

There's a biblical saying that the wisdom of God is folly to the world ('For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.') It has been interpreted to support crass anti-intellectualism by fundamentalism but I think the meaning is more subtle than that. The figure of the 'stupid wise man' is a cross-cultural meme, often appearing as a vagabond or itinerant wanderer, turning up in stories as seeming fools who in the end reveal their wisdom through some deed or gesture. (It's even echoed in the Lennon McCartney song The Fool on the Hill.)

That's the million dollar question insofar as philosophers of mind are concerned! I mentioned the so-called Mu/Wu mind state in Zen. Do you have any comments on that? — Agent Smith

Zen is often depicted in popular culture as easy-going and spontaneous. In its original cultural setting it's an arduous path. Yes, it is possible to get some insights into such states, sometimes they even arise spontaneously, but in practice Zen requires considerable discipline and commitment. It bears some similarity to what is called 'flow', attaining a sense of complete unity with what you're engaged in, but I think there's a lot more to it in that in the Zen context. (One of the first books I read about it was the well-known D T Suzuki book The Zen Doctrine of No-mind.)

Gnosis has a more specific meaning than knowledge. Actually there's really nothing that maps against gnosis in secular culture - perhaps advanced knowledge of scientific principles might be comparable, but gnosis is an existential discipline, not a third-person objective science. You can possess extraordinary degrees of knowledge about a lot of subjects whilst still not obtaining gnosis. It is usually understood to be understanding the factors that bind you to ignorance but again there's nothing that really maps against that in secular Western culture.

I can't help the feeling of this:

I put myself in ancient or Classical Greece. Whenever the school of Athens was active.

I argue with people what is best for us, what is the best way to live. What is it that we know, don't know, can't know, and in this quagmire of knowables we create collective nouns for some concepts.

So far so good.

The we take these concepts and we reason out how to handle these concepts and how to apply them to our lives in order to live the best lives we possibly can.

We are all middle-class intellectuals: we have slaves to do jobs for us, but we are not independently wealthy, and we are all rather intelligent.

Then after an afternoon's worth of debate we go home, eat a mediocre meal, screw our wives, (one each) and go to sleep.

In the meantime!!!!!

In the meantime the rich: the oligarchs, the patriarchs, the patricians, whatever you want to call them, eat really tasty food, well-spiced, with exotic fruits, and drinking to it expensive, heavy wines; and after dinner they sample their harems of very beautiful women.

I can't escape the comparison between their society and ours. In those years there was an abandon of intellectual thought; these days there is an abandon of mediocre tv. Both for the middle classes. We are told now to buy a new car to be happy, or a tv with a huge screen, or take a vacation in the Bahamas, or to go on a website to find dates, or to go to this or that store to buy apparel, or to buy pizza from this or that pizza place. This we are told to do become happy.

The ancients or Classicals were told to figure out in an intellectually intuitive way what makes them happy.

In the meantime the rich in both societies reap the delights available to humans in ways the middle class can't even fathom.

So the bottom of it is that creating concepts like aporia, integratia, rupertonia, etc. etc. you call them what ever you want, and figuring out how to navigate them in your life to become happy are mere ersatz, are poor attempts at rationalizing to help self-suggest happiness, much the same as you amass useless junk in your home in these modern times to lull yourself into believing you are happy.

While, in effect, the route to happiness is completely different.

While, in effect, the route to happiness is completely different. — god must be atheist

Well said. However, the Greeks were no fools. They knew about everything you said. And being Greek they had a philosophy to fit the occasion. It was Cynicism - live the simple life, the life of a dog, turning your back on the emptiness of social distinctions and material wealth. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cynic-ancient-Greek-philosophy

I am afraid that choosing a dog's life is just sour grapes. That's also told by a Greek.

We live in a time when there is a sub-culture which adores and idolizes the Greek culture of thought. I feel that that is overplayed. There is nothing in the Greek culture that a smart person in our age could not develop on his own using his or her own brains. And collectively, as a society, we have surpassed the Greek culture collectively as a society in wisdom.

True enough, there are also sub-cultures in our present society which are lightyears below and behind the thought-achievements of the Greeks. My answer to that is that there were people then too, who took no note of the constantly arguing philosophers in the School of Athens.

Ancient Greeks were not the fount of all wisdom. Still, some of them were some of the source of some of it. We don't need Euclid now. The Chinese never needed Euclid. We may still marvel at Euclid and at what he achieved.

And collectively, as a society, we have surpassed the Greek culture collectively as a society in wisdom. — god must be atheist

Well, I'm a Cynic in the more modern sense. I would not say that we have surpassed Greek culture in wisdom, only that we rival them in folly. There continues a lot to learn from the Greeks and learning from them does not mean deferring to them as authorities.

We may still marvel at Euclid — Cuthbert

You're advocating that there be a Geometry Man? Saving the world from evil second-degree equations and from hideous indefinite integrals from outer space. Oha! (Marvel at Euclid.)

Sorry, not to diminish the gravity of your post... just I came from the ShoutBox forum and I m still in "Very silly mood".

The Chinese never needed Euclid. — Cuthbert

They also didn't engender the scientific revolution.

They also didn't engender the scientific revolution. — Wayfarer

Damn.... Best argument I've ever seen from you...

There's a biblical saying that the wisdom of God is folly to the world ('For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.') It has been interpreted to support crass anti-intellectualism by fundamentalism but I think the meaning is more subtle than that. The figure of the 'stupid wise man' is a cross-cultural meme, often appearing as a vagabond or itinerant wanderer, turning up in stories as seeming fools who in the end reveal their wisdom through some deed or gesture. (It's even echoed in the Lennon McCartney song The Fool on the Hill.) — Wayfarer

:fire:

Squares with how goodness and naïvety are confused with each other. Is it wise to be good or is it folly extremum? Satyam (verum) Shivam (godliness/bonum) Sundaram (pulchrum)?

Hitler was never considered a fool, evil yes, but no, never an imbecile. Yet, if one gives it some thought, Hitler comes off as a complete idiot. That's the flip side of the coin.

Zen is often depicted in popular culture as easy-going and spontaneous. In its original cultural setting it's an arduous path. Yes, it is possible to get some insights into such states, sometimes they even arise spontaneously, but in practice Zen requires considerable discipline and commitment. It bears some similarity to what is called 'flow', attaining a sense of complete unity with what you're engaged in, but I think there's a lot more to it in that in the Zen context. (One of the first books I read about it was the well-known D T Suzuki book The Zen Doctrine of No-mind.) — Wayfarer

Yeah, theory and practice, not the same! I think Zen proponents tend to present their audience with a much simplified version of Zen so as not to spook them. Makes sense. Let the fish bite the hook first, the line and sinker for later.

Gnosis has a more specific meaning than knowledge. Actually there's really nothing that maps against gnosis in secular culture - perhaps advanced knowledge of scientific principles might be comparable, but gnosis is an existential discipline, not a third-person objective science. You can possess extraordinary degrees of knowledge about a lot of subjects whilst still not obtaining gnosis. It is usually understood to be understanding the factors that bind you to ignorance but again there's nothing that really maps against that in secular Western culture. — Wayfarer

:fire:

I'll get back to you if I have any further questions.

G'day mate!

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Bafflement may be frustrating, but it can also be stimulating . . . . for those with a curious mind. :joke:

Very uplifting words! :up:

Do you suppose people who recommend aporia (bafflement) as a healthy state of mind were conflating it with "awe and wonder". The latter (awe and wonder) seems to be more appealing than the former (aporia). Perhaps the one is a synonym for the other. Sabrá Mandrake!

But there's another set of meanings altogether, which is communicated in classics such as 'the cloud of unknowing'. That is associated with the 'negative way' of contemplative meditation - self-emptying or putting aside all discursive thought and reasoning. There are elements of that in the Socratic attitude but it is not something that ought to be over-emphasised. You also find that in Taoism - 'he that knows it, knows it not, he that knows it not, knows it'. — Wayfarer

I read the Wikipedia article on "The Cloud of Unknowing." The quotes included seemed really down to earth and practical, just, as you intimated, like the Tao Te Ching. I have been saying, without really thinking it through, that the experience of God is the evidence for God. Maybe it will help me develop a more robust understanding. I downloaded a PDF version and uploaded it to my Kindle.

I have been saying, without really thinking it through, that the experience of God is the evidence for God. — T Clark

I think this is a fairly widely held view - the evidence is embodied in the experience. My reservations with this as a crass naturalist, is what counts as experience of god? Without wanting to be glib, I have no doubt that members of Islamic State and the KKK have had experiences of God which help form their beliefs and actions.

It's a perennial title, a meditation handbook.

Without wanting to be glib, I have no doubt that members of Islamic State and the KKK have had experiences of God which help form their beliefs and actions. — Tom Storm

It is a horrible fact of life that the apparently-devout can participate in such terrible atrocities. But I regard this as an indication of human weakness, rather than as anything intrinsic to spirituality. Recall that many of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were committed for political or nationalistic causes. Humans are capable of corrupting anything.

As for the nature of religious or spiritual experiences, there's a lot of literature on that. Seeking to understand it was why I had enrolled in comparative religion back in my early days. William James' book Varieties of Religious Experience is an example.

Obviously there is a lot of cultural conditioning associated with religion - in fact for many people that's all religion can ever be. But there's a different kind of spirituality which is, I suppose you could say, more natural, comprising those insights arising from who knows where - the wind blows where it lists - tapping into that, somehow, is the key, although it's generally elusive.

I think this is a fairly widely held view - the evidence is embodied in the experience. My reservations with this as a crass naturalist, is what counts as experience of god? Without wanting to be glib, I have no doubt that members of Islamic State and the KKK have had experiences of God which help form their beliefs and actions. — Tom Storm

I'm a non-theist who is sympathetic to religion. Your questions are good ones for which I don't have any specific answers. On the other hand, bad people can justify themselves with any kind of belief - religious, philosophical, political, nationalistic, moral...

My thoughts in this regard are mainly in reaction to those who say there is no evidence for God. There is evidence, they just aren't convinced by it. That makes a big difference to me.

It's a perennial title, a meditation handbook. — Wayfarer

I'm sure it's come up on the forum before. I just haven't followed up on it.