And finally how that accounts for his conviction that ‘ethics are transcendent’ along with those other aphorisms which indicate the transcendent source of ethics. — Wayfarer
Wittgenstein did not put an end to metaphysics, so much as showed that it is better done in action than in philosophical speculation. — Banno
Wittgenstein did not put an end to metaphysics, so much as showed that it is better done in action than in philosophical speculation. — Banno
I don’t think either of them did that though. More that they were scrupulous about the use of conceptual language for what is beyond its scope.
The distant cause of these problems was the loss of the use of analogical language and symbolic imagery. That in turn goes back to Duns Scotus ‘univocity of being’. It was that which foreclosed the possibility of there being expressions conveying different modes or levels of being.
(But I’m not going to be able to develop on that right now as it’s not the kind of dialogue that lends itself to tapping out characters on an iphone in a car park. But see this post.) — Wayfarer
Husserl's phenomenological reduction provides the method, which is not qualitatively different from meditation yoga. — Constance
Value is absolute. Not value here or there, but the presence of value as such is absolute. Try an argument from utility: the philosopher's evil demon is up to no good, and insists you torture one child for the weekend, or a thousand other children will be tortured for a thousand years a far greater intensity. Utility says go for the weekend, but note: this decision does not diminish one whit the badness of the weekend affair. Clearly, and this is the point, there is NOTHING that can diminish this, which tells us we are in the presence of an absolute. There is no way possible, it is apodictically impossible, to relativize this badness away. — Constance
I don’t follow. Torture weekend is not as bad, in the mind of the torturer, relative to torture millennium in both quality and quantity, assuming the torturer feels that torture is bad to begin with. — praxis
That in turn goes back to Duns Scotus ‘univocity of being’. It was that which foreclosed the possibility of there being expressions conveying different modes or levels of being. — Wayfarer
I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways. First from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since he is not a body; nor composition of form and matter; nor does His nature differ from his suppositum; nor his essence from his being; neither in Him is composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore it is clear that God in no way composite, but is altogether simple. Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent upon them; but God is the first being, as has been shown above. Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves diverse cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as has been shown above since he is the first efficient cause. — Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q.3. Art7
in the same way Kant got it wrong: it is not impossible of vacuously speculative to discuss metaphysics. — Constance
I'm interested in the link between Husserl and "meditation yoga." Can you say more about this? — ZzzoneiroCosm
That ought be an "or"? That metaphysical speculation is vacuous is not just an assertion, but is demonstrated. Pointing out that Heidegger or Husserl indulged does nothing but display their emptiness. — Banno
I still don’t follow. Concepts are interdependent and are meaningless in isolation. — praxis
Secondly, by the time of the Investigations it is clear that whatever categories we might posit are arbitrary in that we might posit quite different categories if it suited our purpose. They are not about how the world is but about what we do in the world - we ought not look for their meanign but for their use. — Banno
..and this cannot be done; hence the approach taken here will not work. — Banno
It is, or it can be, a very strange business, even mystical. — Constance
What does it mean that it cannot be done? — Constance
What is the phenomenological reduction? It is a suspension of the natural way we relate to the world, the everydayness, the science, and the implicit default interpretations that are always there in a given moment of conscious existence, in the effort to discover the "things themselves". — Constance
Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them. — Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Religion is about the Good, as Witt said. — Constance
The Universe is, according to philosophers who base their beliefs on idealism, a place of the spirit. Other philosophers whose beliefs are based on a materialistic view, say that the Universe is composed of the matter we see in front of our eyes.
Buddhist philosophy takes a view which is neither idealistic nor materialistic; Buddhists do not believe that the Universe is composed of only matter. They believe that there is something else other than matter. But there is a difficulty here; if we use a concept like 'spirit' to describe that 'something else other than matter', people are prone to interpret Buddhism as some form of spiritualistic religion and think that Buddhists must therefore believe in the actual existence of spirit. So it becomes very important to understand the Buddhist view of the concept 'spirit'. I am careful to refer to spirit as a concept here because in fact Buddhism does not believe in the actual existence of spirit.
So what is this something else other than matter which exists in this Universe? If we think that there is a something which actually exists other than matter, our understanding will not be correct; nothing physical exists outside of matter....Some people explain the Universe as a universe based on matter. But there also exists something which we call value or meaning. A Universe consisting only of matter leaves no room for value or meaning in civilizations and cultures. Matter alone has no value. We can say that the Universe is constructed with matter, but we must also say that matter works for some purpose. So in our understanding of the Universe we should recognize the existence of something other than matter. We can call that something spirit, but if we do we should remember that in Buddhism, the word 'spirit' is a figurative expression for value or meaning. We do not say that spirit exists in reality; we use the concept only figuratively. — Nishijima Roshi, Three Philosophies, One Reality
I've been an avid student of meditation for over 20 years: the obsession settled into a placid daily practice. And I have to say - after twenty years' experience - I don't see meditation as offering a link to nothingness. (I played around with notions of nothingness for a long time....) I see it as the ability to sustain near-sleep and near-dream states while maintaining full to partial conscious awareness. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I practice stopping my breath. — Constance
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.