When I say thought, I mean linguistic thought. Love begins in caring and nurture, you know nests, sitting on eggs, wagging your tail when the human looks at you. — unenlightened
For Husserl, the brain is indeed ‘real’, but then he analyzed the real as a higher level construction of intentional acts, just as real spatial objects are constituted out of correlated perceptions. — Joshs
All facts of nature for Husserl are contingent and relative. Consequently, we can’t use the ‘reality’ of the brain as an explanatory grounding for the constitutive process out of which it emerges as an ideal object. — Joshs
When I say thought, I mean linguistic thought. Love begins in caring and nurture, you know nests, sitting on eggs, wagging your tail when the human looks at you.
— unenlightened
Right, that's why I said love is prior to thought, and thought requires love, in the sense that love is necessary for thought. This is evident in human beings, as thoughtfulness is the result of love, and thoughtlessness is what results from a lack of love.
Thought is derived from love, as a necessary precondition. So love is even deeper within the internal than thoughts are. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are of the universe - there is no inside, no outside, there is only intra-acting from within and as part of the world in its becoming. — Karen Barad
I really cannot understand how dualism is avoidable in an accurate understanding of reality. This is due to the nature of time. The problem is that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities, while the past consists of what actually is determined. Being unfolds in time, as you say, and this is at the present, so the living being partakes in both the undetermined future, full of possibilities, and the determined past, full of actualities. How can we understand this two-fold reality without a dualist framework? — Metaphysician Undercover
Taking a view of what the reader needs to know, or what the report needs to convey is necessary, but demonstrates how the goal is not truth. — Judaka
I think we can better understand subjectivity by perceiving individuals as being overburdened with truths and being required to organise them. In organising them, we must make choices, that is subjectivity. — Judaka
Respectfully, is this statement itself a lie then ? Or should I at least be careful not to assume your intention to be honest with me ? Are you not telling me how things are ? — plaque flag
I agree that some serious organization is going on. 'Choices' seems correct, but I think we need to add a temporal dimension. — plaque flag
And what of this activity we're engaged in right now ? Critical rationality. You can disagree with me but not with yourself. Same for me. We both appeal to norms that transcend us both, finding our better self in a 'projected' 'ideal' perfected rational subject. — plaque flag
Why do we need to add a temporal dimension? — Judaka
In Husserl’s phenomenology of embodiment, then, the lived body is a lived center of experience, and both its movement capabilities and its distinctive register of sensations play a key role in his account of how we encounter other embodied agents in the shared space of a coherent and ever-explorable world. — plaque flag
“If we think of monadic subjects and their streams of consciousness or, rather, if we think the thinkable minimum of self-consciousness, then a monadic consciousness, one that would have no "world" at all given to it, could indeed be thought - thus a monadic consciousness without regularities in the course of sensations, without motivated possibilities in the apprehension of things. In that case, what is necessary for the emergence of an Ego-consciousness in the ordinary sense? Obviously, human consciousness requires an appearing Body and an intersubjective Body - an intersubjective understanding.”(Ideas II, p.303)
“It is thinkable that there would be no Bodies at all and no dependence of consciousness on material events in constituted nature, thus no empirical souls, whereas absolute consciousness would remain over as something that cannot simply be cancelled out. Absolute consciousness would thus have in itself, in that case, a principle of factual unity, its own rule, according to which it would unfold with its own content, all the while there being indeed no Body. If we join it to a Body, then perhaps it becomes dependent, though in the first place it still retains its principle of unity and does so not just through apriori laws of consciousness in general.” (Ideas II, p.3)
Note that you write we can’t use the ‘reality’. Who is this brainless we ? I think it's Feuerbach's 'we' of 'Reason.' It floats 'above' (independently) of any particular embodied human subject, but it is simply not intelligible as independent of all such flesh. — plaque flag
If you're going to highlight my choice, let me ask, how much of a choice do I even have? How would it serve me to ignore the established norms? — Judaka
I take there to be no higher meaning than that, do you? — Judaka
We follow them because they're useful, and partially because we're compelled. — Judaka
We are bound to no norms we do not willingly embrace -- to nothing 'alien' to us (like an inscrutable god who just gives commands, or a tyrant with more guns than reasons.) — plaque flag
Autonomy allows me to control myself, and it makes sense for me to adapt to my environment. That doesn't mean I think highly of it. — Judaka
Perhaps by understanding that ‘the past’ is determined only within phenomenon, and has agential, rather than temporal, separability from either ‘the future’ or ‘the present’. The ‘living being’ does not simply partake, but, like all material bodies, acquires specific boundaries and properties through open-ended dynamics of intra-activity - as Barad says, “humans are part of the world-body space in its dynamic structuration”. — Possibility
It's important to be honest with others, but this is trickier, for reasons I probably don't need to go into. — plaque flag
How about you let me do your thinking for you ?
This joke is to wake you up maybe to what autonomy really means in this context. A philosopher who thinks for his fucking self and doesn't believe whatever he's told is exactly what I'm talking about. Autonomy means you must be convinced. You sit on judgment on the claims of strangers. — plaque flag
What does it mean to say that the past has agential separability, for example? And what does "open-ended dynamics of intra-activity" mean? — Metaphysician Undercover
Understand the limitations of rationality and logic, that most philosophers seem blind to. — Judaka
There is no "whole truth", we are forced to select truths and logic, one must. If you understand this, you can put to rest any notion of "whole truth". — Judaka
I'm having trouble tracking some of these tangential topics. Is this about what we "ought" to believe? — Judaka
I have the power to legislate my own norms in a technical sense only, if I abandoned any sense of pragmatism, any desire for compromise, or any concern for consequence, then I can legislate my own norms. So long as I have some sense, there's a significant limit to it. — Judaka
I suggest that you've wandered into performative contradiction. You tell me to understand the 'limitations of rationality and logic.' Wouldn't this understanding be through rationality and logic ? — plaque flag
To understand is “to be sympathetically or knowledgeably aware.” Understanding through rationality and logic alone do not allow for sympathetic awareness or love, let alone any relation to the illogical or unknown. What is excluded from mattering must form part of our understanding, if we are to be fully accountable. — Possibility
It's interesting you say that, and it may be different for different people, but I think it is easier to be honest with others, an honesty of expression which may or may not consist with being honest with oneself. — Janus
I think it is easier to honestly express the views we are conscious of holding, than it is to determine whether the views we consciously hold are coming from a place of honesty or dishonesty, meaning from a place of impartial rationality as opposed to other motivations. — Janus
I suggest that you've wandered into performative contradiction. You tell me to understand the 'limitations of rationality and logic.' Wouldn't this understanding be through rationality and logic ?
Or is the 'understanding' you have in mind mystical ? Does it wait in the arms of Jesus ? Or in a dose of DMT ? — plaque flag
Only in the sense that all critical rationality is. My OP is a fairly ambitious ontological thesis that explains the relationship of what's called 'mind' and 'matter'. My direct realism is easier to understand once one grasps our shared situation as discursive rational/normative subjects. This is the condition of possibility for science and philosophy. To deny this condition is to engage in performative contradiction. — plaque flag
Of course you don't rule the world. — plaque flag
The topic is the quest for or toward greater autonomy. What ideal does critical rationality depend on or aim at ? — plaque flag
We have a goal, an aim, and to accomplish it, one must have the right understanding, using the right logic. What is "right" is what accomplishes the goal. You're demonstrating that you're doing this in every response to me. — Judaka
We need a framework, we need goals, we need selection biases, and philosophy provides these, these and not the "whole truth". I say it's a limitation, but that may have been misleading, my intention is to say it can't be the whole truth. Having to "arrange truth" isn't a flaw, it's just necessary. — Judaka
I take you to be saying something nobody in their right mind would disagree with, so long as you think of it that way, then we're probably on the same page. — Judaka
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.