Cool. As to my liking for Jung, yea, so so. Some of his concepts are interesting to me - and, maybe even pragmatic in certain contexts for some - but, notwithstanding, not analytical enough for my general tastes. Notions such as that of synchronicity and the universal unconscious come to mind. Well, this when considered from a panpsychistic perspective; or, at least, something close enough to it. As I said, interesting but in no way definitive. — javra
Eyes, olfactory bulbs, the machinery of the ear -- in situ ( 'in the original position') are not objects of the world ? I don't have to be an optometrist to shake the water out of my ears when I go swimming, to worry that so-and-so overheard me gossiping.Sense organs in situ are not objects in the world, unless you’re studying them as an optometrist, for example. They are fundamentally elements of experience - they’re referred to in Buddhism as ‘sense-gates’. — Wayfarer
Maybe I'll check out Jung's analysis though, sounds quite worthwhile. — javra
there are some who do maintain that the philosopher, as an individual subject (subjected to the very same world of objects and logic to which everyone else is an equal subject of), is strictly illusion — javra
And it doesn't strike me as the only mythos to which it could apply. — javra
We are forced up and out and engaged in this or that. All of this fuss. — schopenhauer1
Taoism, seems to want one to sort of glide through the surface of the struggle rather than fight it. There is a Way and it flows like a river. But you see, that is tolerance of the struggle, not escape. Sleep is escape par excellence. The Way is tolerance (meditate whilst doing the dishes, sweep the floor in a fluid motion, etc.). Sleep is escape. — schopenhauer1
If there are universals among, at the very least, all human beings – to include identical aspects of our cognition as a species, the occurrence of other humans, and the reality of an objective world commonly shared by all – how might these universal truths be discerned or discovered without any investigation into what is in fact actual relative to the individual subject? — javra
In a way, it reminds me of the better aspects of Nietzsche. — javra
Though I don’t have tremendous respect for the person who said it, I can jive with the aphorism, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” — javra
As a person with math background you might ask this question of that discipline as well. Every day about 80 articles are submitted to ArXiv.org . There are probably tens of thousands of articles published that are read by less than five people and have not garnered enough support to move the needle of mathematical desire.
To this extent most mathematics and philosophy have little to no effect on the twists and turns of civilization. But there is a kind of satisfaction to the individual producing their product. — jgill
Life by definition wants to live. There is no life otherwise and no discussion of anything. — Kaplan
For sure. My second wife is a master of sociability. I emulate her as much as possible. It's an art but it can be learned. — Pantagruel
Recognising that the brain synthesises sensory inputs with pre-existing knowledge is not 'spatial reasoning', but comes from direct analysis of how cognitive processes and reason operate together. — Wayfarer
It's very much a "You have to have been there." situation, but Meri handled this guy twice her size perfectly. To me then, it was like watching magic. — wonderer1
Buddha was "enlightened" but he did not simply cease to exist. He was free of all attachments, so some sort of "ego death". But what is that really? — schopenhauer1
It is to step back as far as possible by having a method that systematically abstracts such historical contingencies until only the pure structure of “being” is being contemplated. — apokrisis
You could make a case that he spoke to the metabolism - the economic and political order - of his time. — apokrisis
Your inner circle are your back-slapping chorus. Your outer ring becomes your treacherous rivals for the prize. Then beyond that, you are back into the general crowd of folk "doing science, but no threat to your career prospects" and hence its all friends again as you turn your collective hatred on the metaphysicians or the government funding agencies. — apokrisis
Yes, precisely so. — javra
There’s a lot to the link you’ve shared. Descartes was a man in search of infallible knowledge. I’m one to believe such cannot be had. — javra
Communication that intends truth assumes (tacitly) a single world that encompasses all participants, and any relatively private subspaces (personal imaginations, maybe qualia) that might be allowed to them, as well as a set of shared semantic-logical norms. — plaque flag
Well that is my current research interest. To model life and mind at all their levels in organismic language. — apokrisis
Our positions are poles apart if I am emphasising the socially constructed and communal nature of rational inquiry, and you are pushing the Romantic image of the individual genius. — apokrisis
This is only a very rough sketch of just one possible account regarding Kantian categories and the objective world. — javra
“But although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.” This is from the CPR. — Janus
Without prior experience to reflect upon (without memory in other words), how would we ever be able to discover such principles? — Janus
But even so, why does that make a difference – except in being a lossy compression of what I said? — apokrisis
No. Neuroscience does that. The view of the neural level of world-making from a verbal and mathematical level of world-making. — apokrisis
Interesting. There seems to be a similar performative contradiction in Donald Hoffman's idealist philosophy - if evolution is only about survival and does not support humans acquiring truth about reality, how does Hoffman ascertain that his metaphysics is true? I recall his response being something like - 'I don't, everything is wrong, even my theory.' Perhaps this is taking fallibilism too far. — Tom Storm
What would Shakespeare have said? What would Peirce have said? From their points of view, what do you suspect would be the answer and why? — apokrisis
We can use a word like “philosopher” widely or narrowly. But with that freedom comes the responsibility to not employ it confusingly and thus render our utterances vague. — apokrisis
... And others say even that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs! — BGE
Whatever is given us as object, must be given us in intuition. All our intuition however takes place by means of the senses only; the understanding intuites nothing, but only reflects. [T]he senses never and in no manner enable us to know things in themselves, but only their appearances, which are mere representations of the sensibility, we conclude that 'all bodies, together with the space in which they are, must be considered nothing but mere representations in us, and exist nowhere but in our thoughts.' — Kant
Now,if I go farther, and for weighty reasons rank as mere appearances the remaining qualities of bodies also, which are called primary, such as extension, place, and in general space, with all that which belongs to it (impenetrability or materiality, space, etc.)—no one in the least can adduce the reason of its being inadmissible.[/b] As little as the man who admits colors not to be properties of the object in itself, but only as modifications of the sense of sight, should on that account be called an idealist, so little can my system be named idealistic, merely because I find that more, nay,
All the properties which constitute the intuition of a body belong merely to its appearance.
The existence of the thing that appears is thereby not destroyed, as in genuine idealism, but it is only shown, that we cannot possibly know it by the senses as it is in itself. — Kant
If we are just rudely blurting out opinions, then I think you aren't very good at distinguishing flowery rhetoric and a host of noobdazzling fallacies from an actual argument.I think it's more likely that it is the understanding that is fragmentary. — Wayfarer
I also thought it was pretty good. I especially liked the performance of Rufus Sewell.Just watched the series The Man in the High Castle (haven't read the book). I thought it was pretty good. — Janus
If that magisterial view of rational inquiry seems a bit sweeping, well it works. So believe it until a better method comes along. — apokrisis