Probably best to understand me as a skeptical moderate...or a practical skeptic. I believe there's some kind of 'real world' out there in some never quite finally specifiable way. What is a body really and finally? — jas0n
As guide, he doesn’t want to dissuade you from these claims , only to invite you to see if you can experience a mobile flow of change underneath your claims, not invalidating them but embellishing them in such a way that what you previously took to be simple, solid and self-identical now shows itself as harboring within itself a vibrant flow of change. Either you see this added downtime within the laws and facts or you don’t. If you don’t , your view is still valid and useful from the relativist’s perspective. — Joshs
Indeed. I tend towards anti-foundational skepticism to use a rather grand term for my mostly quotidian outlook. I often find what Joshs writes absolutely fascinating but I don't really have a way to make use of such notions in life. Perhaps it seems overly academic to me. — Tom Storm
To put out a manifesto you must want: ABC to fulminate against 1, 2, 3 to fly into a rage and sharpen your wings to conquer and disseminate little abcs and big abcs, to sign, shout, swear, to organize prose into a form of absolute and irrefutable evidence, to prove your non plus ultra and maintain that novelty resembles life just as the latest-appearance of some whore proves the essence of God. His existence was previously proved by the accordion, the landscape, the wheedling word. To impose your ABC is a natural thing— hence deplorable. Everybody does it in the form of crystalbluffmadonna, monetary system, pharmaceutical product, or a bare leg advertising the ardent sterile spring. The love of novelty is the cross of sympathy, demonstrates a naive je m'enfoutisme, it is a transitory, positive sign without a cause.
...
I write a manifesto and I want nothing, yet I say certain things, and in principle I am against manifestoes, as I am also against principles (half-pints to measure the moral value of every phrase too too convenient; approximation was invented by the impressionists). I write this manifesto to show that people can perform contrary actions together while taking one fresh gulp of air; I am against action; for continuous contradiction, for affirmation too, I am neither for nor against and I do not explain because I hate common sense. — Tzara
How do you see the average person taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection? We live in a world of great dogmatic divisions - big question - is there are approach which less educated — Tom Storm
......a central metaphysical idea......may be a central metaphysical idea but it has zero ties to Philosophy..... — Nickolasgaspar
Again the issue is not with metaphysics but with pseudo philosophy parading as such. — Nickolasgaspar
How can science inform as to what we don’t know, if we don’t ask of it questions it alone can answer"
-Science.....uses the same theoretical toolkit with any other Philosophical category. — Nickolasgaspar
-". Except for sheer accident, no science is ever done, that isn’t first thought."
-Actually you are wrong...all philosophy is triggered by observations and data first — Nickolasgaspar
Without knowledge(science) philosophy could never know if its conclusions were wise while without philosophy science would never know what our data mean. — Nickolasgaspar
These two assertions do not have the same truth value. — Mww
- you missed an important word in my point.No, it actually does not. Empirical science uses validation from experience, whereas some categories of philosophy are not amendable to any experience, therefore cannot use that toolkit for its validation. As that famous Enlightenment adage goes, “....though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.... — Mww
-again .... observation and interaction are followed by philosophical pondering. One can't reflect on nothing/zero stimuli. Data and Information are needed in order to come up with wise conclusions. This is why "wisdom" comes with experience...and Philosophy is all about wisdom.Be that as it may, the doing of is not the same as triggered by. Observation and extant knowledge merely serve as occasion for the doing, and that only conditionally. Consider, as well, that philosophy which has for its validation no observation or data whatsoever, re: moral philosophy. I shall trust you not to mistake merely objective behaviorism for the subjective metaphysical principles of moral constitution. — Mww
Now THAT I like. I might say...... without empirical knowledge theoretical philosophy would never know if its conclusions were justified, specifically logic and mathematics, but that’s a hair that doesn’t need splitting. In the interest of technical precision, maybe, but, I get your point nonetheless — Mww
How do you see the average person taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection? We live in a world of great dogmatic divisions - big question - is there are approach which less educated folk can employ to enlarge their perspectives? — Tom Storm
Seriously, can you answer that?
And is it even possible to answer that without sounding like yet another patronizing bourgeois? — baker
We can fill pages of discussion on that topic but nothing originates from real knowledge and none of what it will be said can ever leave the metaphysical realm. This is a text book example of pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#:~:text=Cognitive%20meaningfulness,-Verification&text=The%20logical%20positivists'%20initial%20stance,procedure%20conclusively%20determines%20its%20truth.The logical positivists' initial stance was that a statement is "cognitively meaningful" in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content only if some finite procedure conclusively determines its truth. By this verifiability principle, only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by empiricism were cognitively meaningful. Metaphysics, ontology, as well as much of ethics failed this criterion, and so were found cognitively meaningless.
The issue here is not Science vs Philosophy but Philosophy vs Pseudo Philosophy on really bad abstract reasoning. I am not here to argue in favor of knowledge but in favor of wisdom. Claims that do not provide any wisdom or expand our understanding aren't Philosophical By definition.
Philosophy is the struggle to understand the world through wise claims founded on what we already know, not to make up answers on arbitrary presumptions that we can not evaluate. — Nickolasgaspar
-My metaphysics do not belong in realms. They are limited by Methodological Naturalism and that makes them meaningful because they can be evaluated or even if they are not falsifiable(yet) they do not need unknown realms to be assumed.I suspect your own concept of the 'metaphysical realm' belongs in this same realm by your own standards, and that you've just not recognized that yet. — jas0n
-I might do that but that is irrelevant to my remark. My short point wasn't to start a different topic inside yours. My intention was to point out that those ideas are not Philosophy.I suggest you start your own thread on this issue (should have said this in my previous reply.)
Or please try to address the topic of this thread. — jas0n
My intention was to point out that those ideas are not Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
How can you enrich this conversation without any data...just with faith based claims!? — Nickolasgaspar
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sellars/#ScieRealAntecedent to epistemology, Sellars’s treatment of semantics essentially constitutes a denial of what can be called a semantic given—the idea that some of our terms or concepts, independently of their occurrence in formal and material inferences, derive their meaning directly from confrontation with a particular (kind of) object or experience. Sellars is anti-foundationalist in his theories of concepts, knowledge, and truth.
...
The observational/theoretical vocabulary distinction, thus conceived, was taken to have ontological implications. We are committed to the existence of the given, for that is what ties thought to reality. Theories, however, are merely tools to enable us to explain observation-level empirical generalizations. Presumably, some empirical generalizations may be first derived with the help of a theory, but they are subject to more direct investigation and corroboration, so the theory is not essential to it. Thus, there is no ontological commitment to any entities that theories postulate; they can be viewed as convenient fictions, devices of calculation.
Sellars thinks that this instrumentalist picture gets almost everything wrong. In his view the observation vocabulary/theoretical vocabulary distinction is merely methodological and is, moreover, highly malleable; it therefore possesses no particular ontological force. There is no given, so it can play no semantic role. Meanings are functional roles in language usage, and nothing in principle prevents a term that might originally have arisen as part of a theory from acquiring a role in observation reports. The well-trained physicist “just sees” an alpha-particle track in a cloud chamber as directly and non-inferentially as the well-trained child just sees a dog. Furthermore, what is observable depends on the techniques and instruments employed, and these are often loaded with theoretical baggage. “Pure” observation uncontaminated by theory is outside our reach.
Concepts like the "Transcendental Ego" appear to be more of a product of a death denying ideology (orphaned by facts) than a legit philosophical topic that could allow us to arrive to wise statements about our ontology. — Nickolasgaspar
Imagination is a form of awareness (quiet assumption), so imagining the absence of awareness is a manifestation of awareness. Seems like an elaboration of hazy grammar, not an illumination of the interior. No mention of being out cold, not yet born, or dead.None of us can even imagine a state where basic awareness is not, because we would still be aware of the imagining. Even in dreams we are aware.
https://www.integralworld.net/meditation.htmlMoreover, these traditions maintain, there are not two different types of awareness, enlightened versus ignorant. There is only awareness. And this awareness, exactly and precisely as it is, without correction or modification at all, is itself Spirit, since there is nowhere Spirit is not. The instructions, then, are to recognize awareness, recognize the Witness, recognize the Self, and abide as that. Any attempt to get awareness is totally beside the point. 'But I still don't see Spirit!' 'You are aware of your not seeing Spirit, and that awareness is itself Spirit.'"
A wonder that generations of mystics lack your insight Jason. Your work is obviously cut out. — Wayfarer
Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have curbed & govern’d their Passion or have No Passions, but because they have Cultivated their Understandings. The Treasures of Heaven are not Negations of Passion but Realities of Intellect, from which all the Passions Emanate Uncurbed in their Eternal Glory. The Fool shall not enter into heaven let him be ever so Holy. Holiness is not The Price of Enterance into Heaven. Those who are cast out are All Those who, having no Passions of their own because No Intellect, Have spent their lives in Curbing & Governing other People’s by the Various arts of Poverty & Cruelty of all kinds. Wo, Wo, Wo to you Hypocrites. Even Murder, the Courts of Justice, more merciful than the Church, are compell’d to allow is not done in Passion, but in Cool Blooded design & Intention.
The Modern Chruch Crucifies Christ with the head Downwards.
The Last Judgment is an Overwhelming of Bad Art & Science. Mental Things are alone Real; what is call’d Corporeal, Nobody Knows of its Dwelling Place: it is in Fallacy & its Existence an Imposture. Where is the Existence Out of Mind or Thought? Where is it but in the Mind of a Fool? Some People flatter themselves that there will be No Last Judgment & that Bad Art will be adopted & mixed with Good Art, that Error or Experiment will make a Part of Truth, & they Boast that it is its Foundation; these People flatter themselves. I will not Flatter them. Error is Created; Truth is Eternal. Error or Creation will be Burned up, & then & not till Then, Truth or Eternity will appear. It is Burnt up the Moment Men cease to behold it. I assert for My self that I do not behold the Outward Creation & that to me it is hindrance & not Action; it is as the Dirt upon my feet, No part of Me. ‘What’, it will be Question’d, ‘When the sun rises do you not see a round Disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea?’ O no, no, I see an Innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.’ I question not my Corporeal or Vegetative Eye any more than I would Question a Window concerning a Sight. I look through it & not with it.
— Blake
But there's so much more to it than is conveyed in that abstraction. — Wayfarer
I notice that the source materials is from or about Ken Wilber. Personally I think in the transpersonal philosophy space, Bernardo Kastrup is superior. — Wayfarer
I'm afraid that your eccentric use of 'philosophy' is anything but authoritative. — jas0n
- Of course I can! This is what Natural Philosophy did and watch the result....a 500+ years of epistemic run away success while pseudo philosophy still struggles with unanswerable idealistic or supernatural questions.You can do what so many have done before and try to impose a narrowing of the concept, but you don't get it for free. — jas0n
It's just a word, a thing people do, not the name of the divine. Another poster likes to capitalize 'reason,' and sure enough personification followed, turns out she's a Lady. — jas0n
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.