And so you've proved that thought alone exists. To whom?

To itself alone.

M

Motivation to make goods for others has been around a lot longer than money.

Money is merely a symbol. Human beings are motivated by the need to satisfy instinctual imperative.


What is the point you are trying to make? Or the question you are asking?

Samuel

I think you have missed my point entirely.

The issue at hand is whether morality is subjective. My point is that the notion 'objectivity' is an impossibility and as such to have an opinion as to whether morality is objective is impossible to answer from any viewpoint other than a subjective one.

The reference to Leibiniz is in response to a counter argument that you made that mathmatics is objective "to all who know that 2+2 = 4"

Think about this for a moment. We have a subjective personal understanding that 1 thing plus another makes two things. This is a belief that we hold, it is nothing more than that and it does not describe the reality of real objects. We can apply the belief to dollars and we can say that 1 dollar plus 1 dollar equals 2 dollars. This is still a subjective belief that we have. Now lets examine the objects that are dollars: each of them (the paper bills) are completely unique no matter how precise the technology applied in their manufacfture, they are not equal and can never be so. We have the subjective belief that 1Kg of salt plus 1kg of salt gives us 2 kgs of salt. Yet this is only a belief an agreement between two people, neither kg of salt is in fact1kg. Now if we agree upon the type of weigh scales we are to use in the measurement we are simply refining our beliefs we are in essence agreeing to dismiss the real objective difference.

Because no two things can be the same 1+1 will only be two when we agree that A=1. In doing so we merely agree on a simillarity between A and 1. We can certainly construct a math out of our agreement, but once we assign an object be it an atom or a dollar to the 'A' and then assign a second atom or dollar we cannot have two real objects that are the same, and as such 1+1 remains vaild only as a subjective concept. In reality there is no possibile equality between two material objects. Because two observers agree upon their subjective assesment of an objects simillarity to another object this can never overcome the impossibility of their being objectively different. As such math is only subjectively true, the moment it is applied to the reality of objects it fails to give a precise description of objects. (Objective reality)

Aphorism 17 questions the presumptive basis of the "I" You state that this is agreeable enough and yet you ask me to assume an "I" in order to answer the question.

If you are asking me if I believe that my thought belongs to me, I can only reply that I have no evidence to prove that it does and might best assume that it does not. It may tell me that I am an " I" .....but it also tells me lots of other things that are equally dubious.

All this 'putative "I" can assert, is that thought exists, it offers the tempting indulgence of a "me" and it appears to this 'me'.... to be having a good time doing so, possibly at the expense of the I or the me rather than to the benefit or even the proof of it.

If deterministic principles are true then this I is a foregone conclusion, all that it does is act out a material existence that was established at the point eruption of the big bang. As such I find the "I" to be a rather boring and somewhat predictable material entity.

It is the thought that is interesting from a thoughtful perspective, the material 'I' is destined to feed the maggots, however the thought on the other hand appears to originate from something potentially interesting.. it might even endure after the maggots.

M

No Ireland,

It has lately become the hipocritic oath,
A strict but admittedly subconscious devotion to same is the general rule.

M

Except that the mineness or ownedness of thought is unquestionable. Thoughts always belong to someone; they do not float around freely.

Thats interesting Janus, how did you arrive at this conclusion/assumption?

Did you read aphorism 17?

Not a Nietzsche fan I take it?

Please expand

M

No probs.. I'll set up a pay pal a/c.. do you want to pay in Euros or Dollars?

M

"Would you want to fly with drunk pilots flying your plane had you witnessed them taking a drink in front of everyone before the flight?"

Certainly not Posty. however my point was and is that the flight with the drunk pilot will certainly be more exciting and more of an adrenaline rush, than the usual sober and often entirely predictable affair. Generally I choose not to get on the plane. However it cannot be denied that the drunken pilot (if he/she does not crash the plane) is far more likely to bring me to an unexpected destination, and the unexpected destination is the place where new discoveries are made.

I accept your point in respect of that which is patently offensive. Everybody takes a shit but there are doors on toilets and we dont have to open them irrespective of the most enthusiastic invitations emanating from within.

Lighten up.. you have a proven intellectual caliber and you need not stoop to conquer.

Some people's thought is worthy of response others are not. Allow fools the freedom to be foolish when they are hurting none but themselves.

M

I think one might be applying a semantic overburden to poor old Descartes and his omnipotent demon.

Descartes purpose in the application of the Demon was to prove with consummate genius that only thought exists. If the evil demon can fool me into thinking that everything I am thinking is a delusion it follows that I can prove nothing to exist as all existence may be a deception.

Upon this basis Descartes establishes the premise of absolute doubt. This premise is too often relied upon by the amateur philosopher who can then dismiss any assertion pertaining to 'existent reality' upon the basis of the deceiving demon, or the premise that reality is believed to be real in dreams and therefore we have little call or proof to assert that it is more real when we are awake. The dream analogy and that of the demon are Descartes' fait accompli, for any assertion that reality might be firmly established beyond doubt.

However in his second meditation Descartes applies the notion of universal doubt, to bring us to an incontrovertible truth of the existence of 'something'.

Unfortunately a difficulty arises when Descartes expands that something to include something else.

The something that Descartes successfully proves in his second meditation is the existence of thought.

" But [suppose] there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case too I undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

There must be thought if indeed a demon is to pervert that thought. Thought cannot be perverted into believing that it (thought) does not exist.

This much, as the proof pertains to thought is incontrovertible, however Descartes applies a strict association of thought with an I thinking. At this juncture Cartesian philosophy begins to weaken. All that has effectively been proven is the existence of thought, yet the Demon might well be deceiving this " I" into believing that there is an " I" thing who does the thinking or even generates the thought independently. Because thought exists the existence of an I thinking does not necessarily follow.

Nietzsche addresses this fallacy quite beautifully and quite thoroughly in aphorism 17:

"So far as the superstitions of the logicians are concerned, I will never tire of emphasizing over and over again a small brief fact which these superstitious types are unhappy to concede - namely, that a thought comes when "it" wants to and not when "I" wish, so that it's a falsification of the facts to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks: but that this "it" is precisely that old, celebrated "I" is, to put it mildly, only an assumption, an assertion, in no way an "immediate certainty." After all, we've already done too much with this "it thinks": this "it" already contains an interpretation of the event and is not part of the process itself. Following grammatical habits we conclude here as follows: "Thinking is an activity. To every activity belongs someone who does the action, therefore -." With something close to this same pattern, the older atomists, in addition to the "force" which created effects, also looked for that clump of matter where the force was located, out of which it worked - the atom. Stronger heads finally learned how to cope without this "remnant of earth," and perhaps one day people, including even the logicians, will also grow accustomed to cope without that little "it" (to which the honourable old "I" has reduced itself)."

As such we are left with thought, nothing more and nothing less. The question then follows what is to be done with this thing... thought.

M

This is an interesting one: Freedom of speech versus dignity,respect and decorum. The debate is as old as the hills.

For what its worth here are my 2c. I think that Posty is right the crass nature of ideas communicated with base language and references, is somewhat infantile. However at times it can be amusing. Zizek is no fool, and he is a master of the crass and the crude.

When it is used as a vehicle for thought the depth or significance of the thought is more often proportional to the crudity of the delivery: When this is not the case, genius (as in the case of Zizek) may often be at the table. It is a loss if one misses genius because ones gentle sensibilities are being molested.

I think Chomsky has a hard time taking Zizek seriously for precisely the same reasons, and this is a pity because there is equally much to love and much similarity in their thought. Indeed it might be argued that the Philosophy of the 'left' suffers as a consequence of the lack of unity between these two 'giants' (personally I think Chomsky is most at fault here)

As such there are deep thinking philosophers on this forum who simply avoid the crass stuff and don't engage with the author, this is a pity because behind the crass there is often a significant amount of passion, and little of interest can be asserted without a modicum of passion. Crass becomes truly crass when it lacks real intellectual substance.

In this respect the moderator is right not to try to limit or censor the crass and the crude, It is up to the individual not to take offence, and when offence becomes unavoidable as when dialogue degenerates into talk of intercourse with the maternal, then it is time for those more interested in philosophy to stop reading, and avoid the disappointment that usually arises when one encounters raw emotion that has became divorced from deeper thought.

Freedom of speech is precious and must persist in spite of its potential for abuse. If the crude and the crass came to predominate on this forum, deep thinkers with a respect for dignified language would go elsewhere and that would be a loss to both freedom of speech AND good philosophy. I think what remains of paramount importance is not the words, but that which lies behind them.

Thank you Posty for raising this issue and thank you Baden for declining to act as a censor. Hopefully the overall displacement will be a little more respect for others, and for the ability to express thought in an engaging manner without a dependence upon the crude and the crass

M

If it truly arises out of Wittgenstein's Philosophy I doubt if it might be fairly considered as vacuous or trite. Please expand?

M

"What was Wittgenstein's conclusion of this critique?... Philosophy is only descriptive, its purpose therapeutic. The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology."

This statement was posted on another thread, I have deliberately withheld the name of the original poster.


(Would the real Slim Shady please stand up...)

M

harry

Your point(s) have already been addressed, but you appear to be unwilling to accept the address. Hence the reference to the bad day. When you make a point and refuse to accept its fallacy, the cause is usually an emotion of some kind. These potentially horrible things invariably get in the way of logic and reason.

To re-iterate (for the final time)

Your point:

"It's a FU to whites in that "I can say the word and you can't". That is racism. Tell me one black who heard a white say the word and thought that the white person meant the same thing they did. It's telling people what they can and can't say based on the color of their skin, which is racism."

I have already asserted that I can, and do use the n-word, and the use of the word is not precluded. My children are of mixed race and I apply the n-word regularly in the context of my loving relationship with them. It is the context that determines the 'right' to use the word, just as it is the context that determines the correct use of any word.

You have (very generously) been directed to a linguistic study of the use of the n-word, if you are interested in the science or philosophy behind same you should read the paper, the abstract perhaps says it all. You might then offer a thread with your own contrary or affirmative insights. As it appears you have much to say on this off thread topic.

Otherwise the forum is a place for ideas rather than intransigent emotion.

M

Harry

You are clearly having a bad day.

Does this help:

I love you!

M

Harry

"Neither is racism, which is what every rapper (most rappers) who uses the N-Word in their lyrics engages in."

The use of the 'n-word' by Rappers and black Americans in General, is a very powerful F.U. To racism itself, not a confirmation of it.

I have black friends, whom I love very dearly and whom I believe love me. I refer to them on particular occasions with the n-word, and they have similar terms which they apply to me on occasion. The grounds for the shared use of the word between us is 'love' and mutual respect and friendship. Many blacks (rightly and wrongly) don't share this space with many whites, and they certainly do not share it with the idiocy of Racism itself.

There is much philosophy behind the use of the n-word between blacks, but that philosophy is as much about love and a shared experience of racism, it is used as a means to identify with something deep, but is certainly not a form of racism.

You should think on this a little more and develop the idea of 'n-word' usage (perhaps in another thread). It is a most interesting subject.

M

Thank you Wayfarer

I am flattered by the compliment. However: compliments, platitudes (or otherwise) do tend to expose a supremacy of personal ego above, thought that is validated by logic. This does seem to be a bit of tempting a cul de sac, and on occasion a pathology that ultimately deposes an initially 'sound' Philosophy.

The question is one of pills the 'delusion pill' or the 'misery pill', my point is that we may not really have a choice between pills but we may have a third option which is to take both or neither (essentially the same thing), and when we do so, we might move beyond the 'hoi polloi and various stages of delusion'.

The important thing here is not to dispel the 'devil' of the the choice, but rather as Zizek asserts, to make the devil work for us.

M

"You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill."

What I am suggesting is that formal Philosophical solution to the dilema of the pills, lies outside of the simplistic notion of the self serving consumption of either pill. The pills represent two states, I am suggesting that Philosophy points to the existence of a third higher order state, that has yet to be formally described, within the context of a synthesis of established Philosophical principles.

M

Praxis

" Although it would require a great deal of effort in the latter case to equal the power of psychedelics. It's practically effortless to eat some mushrooms, for instance."

YES! A cow can graze, only a disciplined mind can meditate.

"It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment."

That is a very profound and insightful comment. Have you considered expanding it into a paper? Very little progress has been made in treating these mind states and you have hit on something essential to a more meaningful understanding of the notion of therapy.

M

I think taking both pills is the same as taking no pill's you have just preserved the 'evil' that is contained in the notion of taking.

M

In a world of pretended and supposed equals, truth as a concept does not really have much meaning. Any armchair philosopher who is worth his/her bacon can pose a rational argument do depose all or most alternate rational arguments.

In the old days (whenever they were) there were authorities, individuals and or institutions who had the final say, there were hierarchies, there were bishops, Lords, and doctors of divinity.

Nowadays there are no experts... everyone with a smartphone is an expert, many or most seek to establish or refresh their sense of significance by debunking someone else's truth. Freud was wrong, Marx was wrong, Nietzsche was wrong, Descartes was wrong.

One can make good bread from the wrongs, and there is little interest in thought that seeks agreement, or that which tips the cap to the Master... in doing so we assert that the Master was or is greater than the self. It is far more gratifying to point to the supposed weakness of other truths than bow to their strengths.

The world is waiting upon a truth that might replace the fancies, parables and celestial myths. Philosophy is not yet up to this task, perhaps because she/we are consumed with a promotion of the self through the destruction of the Master.

I think the truth about the pills is that the choice is not a real one. The notion of choice itself, that we posses the power and or freedom of choice is perhaps the greatest illusion of all. We are not so important as to have a choice, regardless of what we might like to think.

Keep the pills both of them are phony.

In time there will emerge a synthesis of thought. A great work of philosophy that will unite the disparate truth of the Masters into one enduring truth. This might only emerge when the age of self and the 'delusions' inherent to the importance of self come to an end.

We will have our truth only when we are ready for it.

M

So what is your point?

Given that morality, as well as reality is entirely subjective the right or wrong of anything is entirely contextual.

BUT the context requires a firm grip upon what reality might be, our closest approximation to same. For an action to be 'effectively' right or wrong it need only be in keeping with a sound understanding of Natural Laws.

Moral equivocation of any kind is a consequence of an imprecise or self serving understanding of Natural Law. In this sense morality as it pertains to human beings does not really exist, all that exists is the human capacity to operate outside of natural law, and the capacity of others to condemn or approve of same.

Why not come up with an example... of a moral choice/dilemma that cannot be dispelled by adherence to the Principals of 'Natural Laws' And let us see where reason might take us when it is aligned with Natural Law?

M

To all that understand the concept. Do you believe "2+2=4" is right, and "2+2=3" is wrong? If so, then you too believe math to be objective, because only things which are objective can be either right or wrong. On the other hand, subjective things are neither right nor wrong, but only a matter of opinion.

Wow, there is a serious amount of presumption in this assertion. First you are stating that both math and I can partake in a true and objective reality pertaining to "1" or "2" or "4" and when these concepts are put to together there is some objective truth that is distinct from the subjective validation and or acceptance of these numerical ideas.

Objectivity is purely theoretical conjecture it is agreed upon as much as it is disagreed upon .... and all this is done subjectively.

To assert that mathematics offers some objective truth is to put a lot of faith in your math. Math has as much trouble with being objective, as any subject might have with its impossibility.

For arguments sake lets forget about Math's obvious difficulties with; Zero, or the impossibility of 'infinity', or the square root of minus 2, or the impossibility of "irrational numbers", or the absolute impossibility of precise "objective" measurement of anything vis: weight, length, density etc, ..... Or the impossible math behind Xeno's simple arrow.. etc etc,

But for the sake of a bit of crack.... Lets forget these 'problems' with math and begin with the very basic concept of "1".

In accordance with Leibniz's law of indiscernibles it its accepted amongst scientists and philosophers alike that no 'one' thing in the universe can be exactly the same as another 'one' thing: if they are exactly the same, then they must be the same thing. Therefore if I begin my math with the assumption that 1=1, I am beginning with a subjectively accepted falsity. No things are alike, and no one thing in the entire universe is exactly equal to another 'one' thing IE: One is not equal to One . It is equal only to itself. Beyond subjective thinking we can have no two things that are actually equal.

Therefore our starting point, the very foundation of math which asserts with confidence that 1=1 is untrue, and as such is a falsity that must be subjectively overcome or collectively 'believed' if we are to have any math at all.

M

"no one really believes rap to be philosophy, at least not of the sort we consider philosophy to be here, which means the appropriate response would be to weigh it as an art form.."

In respect of material or practical social evolution, Philosophy might well be considered as something of a mute quadriplegic, it requires a vehicle, much as thought apparently requires a body or a physical form to become manifest. Many feel that the 'duality' of mind/thought and body is an empty impossibility that minds are contingent upon body's that minds are to bodies as surfaces are to tables, or scores are to football matches (to quote Strawson) the existence of one is contingent upon the other.

In like fashion Philosophy cannot become real or actualized without a 'form' of some kind, some might consider that the form of philosophy should be confined to words, papers, discussion forums etc. However the problem with words or language has been dealt with by Wittgenstein in that meaning and words are not as precisely connected as the philosopher might like.

At the end of the day something must be done with the words, something must be contingent upon them if they are to be anything more than symbols. To assert that philosophy should remain confined to words is to perpetuate the sentence and continue its confinement to dusty archives in University archives or high brow intellectual conversations. There is no harm in this however high-brow intellectuals rarely 'do' anything other than talk or write. The doing of things is the realm where philosophy becomes real.

There is a line in Don Quixote that refers to the truism that the fields and farms can produce as many philosophers as the Universities, they may not have the language philosophy but they have her ideals and as such are not similarly constrained. Philosophy has its doers who are as important as its thinkers.

In my own estimation 'Art', good art, fine art... is Art in as much as it approximates itself to Philosophy, in as much as it compels new thought and on occasion: action. Music is no different. To deny the philosophy within music is to deny the potential profundity of a liberated Philosophy.

I think it is beyond question that the 'music' of the sixties did more to end the Vietnam war than all the written Philosophy of Christ and Buddha combined.

America is in the throes of an intellectual crisis, an intellectual dark age of sorts. From what I can see, music is doing more to address this, than formal Philosophy could ever dream of.

When Trump is ultimately dispensed with I suspect that music and art will share in the greater claim to have actually effected the necessary social evolution.

"Sit down, lil' bitch, be humble!"
(Kendrick)

M

But philosophy appeals to reason, at the end of the day. That is both its weakness and strength. — Moliere

It is not a weakness that Philosophy appeals to reason. It is the weakness of the reasoner that requires Philosophy to remain on her knees and continue to appeal.

The weakness of Philosophy is that it must genuflect before the reason of the reasoner. Art does not appeal. it stands like a God and simply declares. Art, is the liberated soul of Man.

m

Math is clearly objective; therefore there is a flaw in the logic. — Samuel Lacrampe

'Clearly objective' to whom?

M

I will transfer it to its own thread, and I look forward to your 'observations' on my 'observations'

Indeed there is much to be considered.

I am working through the interesting pieces you have posted in relation to your thread on 'Sufficient Reason' More of this anon.

:)

M

Posty

When you say 'attitude' do you also mean 'observation'? Or are you intimating that perhaps I was in a bad mood or good mood when I wrote the piece?

M

If it is ok with the moderator I will move my post here to its own thread, as the questions it raises in respect of the perpetuation of the Barbey-Ken Princess-Prince myth do not appear to be relevant to this thread.

M

'God' is not really a topic that has any bearing upon Philosophy. He she or it's existence is a subject for religion, and the belief one might have or not have in some human-like intelligence that presides over mankind and the Universe with some interventionist or non-interventionist potential, is a subject for psychology and occasionally for psychiatry.

The real question at hand (if one wishes to know or define a God) is How has the Cosmos been constructed and how does it function?

Science has brought us a considerable way down this road, however this is a journey that can only be completed by Philosophy. I think a far more pertinent question is why Philosophy remains paralyzed whilst Science can clearly advance along this road. I have rasied this question on another thread and would be most appreciative of input to this question, as I feel it is the first to be asked, before an acceptable model of the Cosmos can be constructed.

It might be stated with some confidence that Science has arrived at an impasse in respect of Quantum Mechanics. The current impasse is summarized in the truth or falsity of Bell's Theorem, which suggests that Science has arrived at the question of Determinism, in which case she (Science) can proceed no further until Philosophy gets the proverbial finger out.

The world is waiting.

M

"It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual."
— Marcus de Brun

I think I make it clear that the Princess-Prince (Barby-Ken) mythology is apparently important to society (not necessarily to me). I am trying to understand why this might be so?

It (the wedding) is an occurrence in space and time and is therefore worthy of thought.

As an institution the British Royals are very interesting (mostly to white westerners and those who aspire to some of the ideals and fairy-tale myth of white western 'culture'). In like manner the Kardashians are interesting, or 'brand BMW', or the entire superfluity of 'fashion' etc., All are 'interesting' in the evident control these apparently banal or superfluous 'things' can have over the collective consciousness of the human herd.

The fairy-tale myth of Prince and Princess, and the 'dream' of acquiring the 'riches' of Aladdin, appear to be pan-cultural. They seem to be embedded within the psyche, as they are deeply connected with something universal and instinctual.

From childhood, girls are encouraged to dream of Princesses, and boys are encouraged to become Princes and Kings. This intellectual primitivism (like the intellectual primitivism behind good sex) has persisted through the ages because it contains something enduring, something that is connected with our primordial instinctual imperatives towards being.

It is perhaps important that girls learn of the mechanics of the mating ritual (these are contained in the Princess myth) and it is important that males learn how to attain and wield power, so that they might be attractive to their Princesses, and thereby also participate in the mating ritual. In this sense, the wedding might be considered as an important (but entirely primitive) celebration of the importance of the mating ritual; through a vicarious participation in the ritual itself. The fact that they are both 'beautiful' in a 'Barby and Ken' sort of way; greatly expands and facilitates the Universal appeal of this universal orgy.

When adults participate in good sex, they/we do so, at the behest of 'instinct'. When, as adults, we find pleasure in the continued vicarious participation in the Princess-Prince myth, or we participate in an intellectually baseless consciousness of being 'fashionable' or 'becoming wealthy'; we are clearly executing superficial behaviors, that are motivated by deeper instinct. One who is willfully unawares of the relationship between his instinct and his behavior, might well be described to as deluded by those instincts.

At times we are all necessarily and wantonly deluded by our instincts, otherwise they cannot be enjoyed to the full.

These kinds of mass participatory weddings/rallies, represent an opportunity for those outside of them to remind ourselves that the human animal is motivated by instinctual rather than entirely logical or intellectual imperatives. Instinct and intellect may perhaps be mutually exclusive?

Any philosopher who imagines himself/herself engaged in the: grunting/sweaty, in-out-in-out, reality that is sexual intercourse, cannot escape the fact that it (sex) is an exposure of the truth; that (for most of us) Philosophy, or intellectual function, takes 'second place' behind brute instinctual imperative.

The real question, as it pertains to the function 'royal-wedding', is what is the instinctual imperative that is being satisfied through vicarious participation in the nuptials between: 'one normal average man who defecates', and 'one normal average woman' who also defecates?

The notions 'Prince' and 'Princess', are of course un-real, and assigned by the collective consciousness of the herd. We see in the affair, (alive and well) the raw instinct that has motivated the human animal from the very beginnings of human life. We glimpse, for an instant the ephemeral 'secret' language of nature herself. This 'force' is all-powerful, and whilst it might present in the guise of a fairy-tale; it also contains humanity's greatest potential for horror.

The affair has a parallel, in that similar instinctual imperatives clearly lie behind mass participation in 'fashion' the 'Kardashians', and even 'animal intercourse'. These participatory behaviors are the manifest form of instinctual imperative. Interestingly, of themselves their 'intellectual content', cannot be simultaneously participated in or explored. The intellectual content or experience of sex, strictly lies outside of its experience and enjoyment. The moment one begins to think about and analyze ones erection, is generally the point of it's departure.

Similarly the more one attempts to intellectually evaluate 'fashion' the more it's inherent pointlessness is exposed, and the less it can be enjoyed. High fashion and high intellect may well be mutually exclusive.

The wedding affair itself contains nothing intelligent and nothing inherently evil within it, other than the fact that it is a fresh version of a repetitive story. As it unfolds, it offers the participating subject the opportunity of vicarious participation in, and satisfaction of, a primordial instinctual imperative, in a superficially 'harmless' manner. It is after all in essence a 'beautiful' wedding.

The interesting question exposed (solely to non-participants), pertains to the animal-nature of the participants themselves. By this I mean that one cannot think upon, or thoroughly intellectually analyse one's instinctively motivated behavior during the behavior itself.

Therefore the wedding-affair reminds (those of us outside it) of a potential horror, vis: the dangerous and destructive potential of the human herd, when it is operating on the basis of a predominant instinctual imperative

We must therefore ask: What is the 'something inherent' within these apparently benign mass affairs and gatherings, that is mutually exclusive of reasoned intellectual function or analysis?

The affair might well be considered to be benign or even banal. However this is not entirely true as the affair contains a horror of sorts, one that is reminiscent of the all mass rallies. To those outside of the lure of the fairy-tale it contains a dangerous destructive power, one that is potentiated by the herd itself. A power who's first and most important victims are intellect and reason, once these are dispensed with, pure evil becomes entirely possible if not inevitable.

We must therefore ask: Is it possible that the un-intellectualized evil-myths perpetuated at the Nuremberg rallies, can be compared to the Capitalist and ecological evils, that are presently perpetuated by the persistence and pervasiveness of the Princess-Prince fairy-tale myth?

M

Why do you believe morality is subjective?

Because to do otherwise, is to have a subjective belief about morality.

M

CasKev

Fair play to ya for sharing something personal and honest. You are a philosopher of the soul! One of the few advantages of being depressed is that one cannot be arsed living the lie.. to the same extent as others do.

I think you are quite right to seek solace in Philosophy. Recall Neitzsche's last act of sanity before he fled from the world. To be honest, I think you will find more consolation in Philosophy than you might in CBT which might help somewhat, but at the end of the day, is perhaps little more than a set of distraction techniques.

You should be careful with your depression.. you have a kid... and depression kills people. Therefore before I continue with my own 10 cents, I would ask that you let us know if you are getting real help in the sense that your family Dr and therapist is aware of your depression. (I must confess at the outset that I am a physician) and I would be apprehensive of such a conversation with you, unless it has been clearly established that you are in a 'safe place' and you are not in danger of doing any harm to yourself.

If you wish to contact me off-forum my email is drmdebrunatgmaildotcom . Once you confirm that you are not in a real bad place, or at least that you are not there 'alone' I would be happy to offer some potential guidance.

Mind yourself! Life sucks and humans are gross, but there is much beauty in the world.

M

Purple

Your post is such a rambling jumble of ideas it is difficult to know where to start. Can you summarize in one sentence in plain English what is your precise question, or argument?

M

The impasse is no different to a dilemma, if it can be resolved it does not exist.

The deterministic nature of reality ensures that there are neither dilemmas nor impasses, only the appearance of such. Which is very nice of Determinism, as it gives us something to talk about and lots to do to pass the time.

"The problem is that the Brain is an electro-chemical machine and nowhere during all the processing that goes on can you find the actual Conscious perception of Light. I like to say that when you have a Conscious perception of Light that you are seeing Conscious Light. "

Why do we continue to seek for consciousness within the Brain. Descartes localized it to the pineal gland and Science laughed, and continues to do so. Why all this ridiculous peripatetic philosophical meandering. It has not been found in the brain, or in the neurons or the synaptic clefts or the neurotransmitters, or neural activity..... etc etc ad infinitum.

It clearly, is NOT there. Lets get over it!

If it is not there it must be somewhere else...? Oh no..... I hear the thud of the homocentric giant approaching. He is about to club me over 'my conscious' head, and insist that Man is still the center of the Universe that he is the measure of all things, and that he manufactures this 'consciousness' somewhere inside his head and we will find it, if we just keep looking. As long as he can continue to do so he can maintain the delusion that 'God' is within him or the more contemporary delusion that he is a 'God' unto himself.

Why does philosophy insist that Galileo must continually recant, and that "God" or consciousness is inside our heads. Why not follow established precedent and point the telescope/microscope towards the stars?

M

An intellectual is a member of that endangered cohort of men and women who exercise independent use of the intellect. Usage of said faculty that is independent of; cultural, religious, social and instinctual bias and dogmatism.

One who is relatively free of that which Freud referred to as 'mass psychogenic delusion'. To be an intellectual is to be a pariah, the greater the independent use of the faculty of intellect, the greater the social isolation of the intellectual.

The greatest intellectuals therefore, are the greatest unknowns.

M

Philosophy appears to be awfully fond of this impossible 'way things are'. This potential reality that actually is the pure form of things. "Is" and "are" amount to pure conjecture as the human subject, with all of his technology, can only ever be conscious of a 'was' or the way things were. There is no such reality as a present tense!

So, we mere mortals are chained to the cave, watching shadows on the walls? This reminding ourselves that we are limited in our perception of reality, that we are effectively (via our biological form) limited to what the mind tells us; Simply reiterates a notion as old as the Greeks, and indeed the Irish Bishop concluded that all qualities 'primary' and 'secondary' are 'mental qualities'. Reality for one and all, is (or more correctly was) a purely mental construct, because men must use their minds... seriously!

Lets move on at some point.

If the 'pure form' is beyond the senses, and beyond comprehension, then what use is it to anyone? Who cares about it and why? It belongs to the prime mover and he is welcome to it.

This idiom does not undermine our notion of truth, it effectively defines its coordinates and lays the foundation for the evolution of Philosophy, rather than its paralysis. I do not desist from insisting that one plus one equals two, because of the argument that outside of the reality of mathematics, in a possible other aspect of 'pure-reality' it may amount to something different. Why and when should aspects of pure reality that are entirely precluded from relevance, be somehow hypothetically relevant?

On top of all that, Heraclitus reminds that everything is in flux. That the universe is in a state of effective motion. At each nanosecond all measurements change, and the way things 'are' becomes the way things 'were'. There can be no "are", everything 'is' perceived by the senses as it 'was'. During the time taken for sense-data to be processed by the brain; the way things are, has (in the sense of a pure-reality) actually evolved into a new form in space and time that we have yet to perceive. The true form of (your) pure-reality exists within the future, and is entirely beyond the reach of our historically confined sense-perception. If this 'pure-reality' does indeed exist (you have asserted its existence or possibility) and it is entirely confined to our future (by virtue of the historical nature of perception) it follows with complete certainty, that this pure-reality is entirely confined to the future. Therefore, if you assert that pure-reality exists, and you agree that the process of sensing reality confines 'pure-reality' to the future, this pure reality exists entirely within the future. If it exists only in the future then it is (by definition) entirely Determined.

This proposition is confirmed by the sequential arrival of 'new' albeit equally historical sense data which confirm that the preceding sense data were some vague reflection of the way things were.

So we must function in space and time and reality/truth is only partially conceived. This is the philosophical foundation of our material function within this unattainable pure-reality. Is there a model that undermines these necessary coordinates of our human reality in any substantive manner? We can swim about in an esoteric uncertainty until the cows come home, but what is to be achieved by this wallowing in the mire of uncertainty?

Humanity is chained, not only to sense data, but to a historicity of sense data. We know nothing of the present and the future is pure conjecture but at least we can say with certainty that it exists and it is Determined. Indeed our truth has its limitations, yet to be so limited does not deprive it of reality or definition; it does not make truth vague, but on the contrary gives it certainty.

For human beings in an absolute sense this "way" and this "are" remain out of bounds as a consequence of time, and the evolving nature of a Determined Universe.

So, we are left with a reality that is a 'mental construct' one that is necessarily limited by the fact that we can only receive certain sense data; it is limited by the fact that infinitely accurate measurement is impossible via the practical reality of infinite degrees of accuracy. No 'thing' in the world is like any other thing, and therefore we can have no Science of anything, other than the abstraction of mathematics, a life confined to the past, and perhaps the fancies of imagination. All of this has been hashed out by Locke and Boyle; and Berkeley had the final say. These established philosophical axioms do not undermine reality, or the truth of things, they accurately define the limits of truth so that logical discourse can proceed upon the basis of the Determined form of this pure-reality.

If we are discussing the reality of an apple, and we are human beings equally endowed with senses, what does it matter that the pure form of the apple is unknowable. Science equally agrees and moves on. No two apples can possibly be the same, and therefore there is no actual reference point for anything.

Every apple is entirely unique, the 'standard apple' does not exist. The standard notional agreed truth of an apple, is even less real than any apple that has actually ever existed. Yet, in spite of all the difficulties, in spite of the fact that the standard apple is completely untrue, we can, and do establish the effective truth of the object that is apple. There is of course no such thing as an apple because every apple is, in and of itself THE apple. Each is an example of itself alone. However, this does not prevent us from establishing unequivocal truths that pertain to the object apple; and consequently we can produce cultivate sell, classify and ultimately eat apples... all this without getting into a tizzy about the initial 'untruth' or impossibility of the apple.

If there is a 'pure' form of reality that is outside of human sense, and therefore cannot present itself to us as sense-data; what relevance does this potential input have to the reality-truth of the human subject. Data that is extra sensory, that is beyond the reaches of our sense-dependent technology, has no meaning for us, as by definition it can never be perceived.

To attempt to undermine the truth of a reality with the putative truth of one that can never be perceived is both having and eating an awful lot of cake. Reality/truth has a certain amount of irrelevant uncertainty included into its pure form... so what?

Let us not bore each other to death with the impossibility of pure-reality.

Science can leave that apple on the branch, whereas Philosophy fashions the branch into a rod to beat herself to death with.

The unanswered question remains as to: Why might this be so?

"Further exposition becomes imprecise only as a failure of the use of precise language, or the failed usage, not as a consequence of axiomatic failure. The axiom fails only where it is verifiably false."
— Marcus de Brun

"I agree with this entire proposition except for your use of the word 'only'. I see no 'only' about it. Philosophers have been using language to express ideas for more than 2000 years and have got absolutely nowhere by your measure of eliminating the unreasonable. All major philosophical ideas that have ever been expressed are still held to be reasonable by at least one of our epistemic peers.

Far from being 'only' about imprecise language, the project is permanently and irrecoverably crippled by it."

This is a strange assertion for it contradicts itself in several ways.

'only' as it is used here refers to 'in all instances'. The assertion might be equally made: 'the axiom fails in all instances where it is false'. Or the axiom always fails when it is false.

You assert a problem with the use of 'only' or 'always', and then you follow on with your own application of an 'only' or an always by stating that: 'all' major philosophical ideas that have ever been expressed are still held reasonable'.

Which simply put just asserts that some people are incapable or unwilling to accept a falsity in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Because some people are stupid, it does not make everybody stupid, and the stupidity of the analyst does not have any bearing upon the truth or untruth of the axiom. It is not the 'majority' who decide on truth. It is for example, unquestionably incorrect that fellow human beings should be burned in ovens on the basis of their religion, simply because the 'epistemic peers' of the day believe it to be logical.

Because there are some who feel that a falsity is not a falsity. This does not undermine the falsity itself. It simply reminds us that human analysis of truth or falsity is subject to human bias or personal feelings. Descartes had a God bias, you and I may share a bias towards democracy... but these respective bias have no bearing upon the axiom in question.

You appear to be asserting that truth or falsity is 'only' arrived at by consensus rather than logic or reason.

I am a lover of democracy however it has no place in the present argument and I am curious to know why you should feel that it does? Science does not include 'democracy' into its reasoning, what claim have you, or your 'epistemic peers' upon this self serving nicety?

M