Indeed.. but lots of presumption here.

What does it mean to have 'lived'.?

What does it mean to identify with ones self.?

I think if one gets a really good slice of life's pie, one will be satisfied and have less fear of dying, just like its hard to feel or fear hunger after Christmas dinner.

M

Do you have to be of above average intelligence to engage seriously with philosophy?

No, stupid people engage in Philosophy with the greatest enthusiasm. To engage seriously with philosophy one needs to have the capacity for independent thinking (a rarity), a love of honesty, a sense of humor, and a respect for wiser more erudite minds, this necessarily entails reading the masters.

Does philosophy improve based on the philosophers hypothetical IQ?
IQ is meaningless unless associated with erudition and kindness.

Should philosophy and philosophical debate be made more accessible (without diluting it)?
Or should it be a highly qualified domain?

Not really, the internet and open forums such as this make philosophy totally accessible. Deep thinkers tend to converse with deep thinkers and mostly ignore the fools who tend to ignore or insult the deep thinkers.... thats the way of the world and philosophy is no exception.

So, why is it taboo to talk about death?

I read a quote once I forget by who that reads.

He was afraid of death because he never lived.

Or words to that effect.

I suspect that we fear death more these days because we are so full of our own sense of self importance, the undeniable counter argument to our self importance and validity is death.

The notional construct of God is perhaps a derivative of our fear of death and regardless of its origins, it has certainly been significantly diluted since the advent of science. I suspect that we fear death more in the West because we are so wealthy and so removed from God, from the truth of ourselves, from community and from nature. Our wealth allows us to live very independent lives, we have our own cars houses, private worlds and lives on the internet etc. The more materially independent we are the more we are removed from nature and from the realities of nature. Death is final word from nature, and when we are removed from a dialogue with nature death is more distant and more alien to us.

Today we face the ultimate challenge (death) relatively more alone than ever before. Undoubtedly when the environment begins to collapse and man is returned towards a dependent interaction with and reliance upon nature and community death will be far less. I suspect that people who are more fundamentally honest with themselves and who are more intouch with 'nature' are less worried by death.

M

Take into consideration that Ayn said, "The achievements of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose."

As with most philosophical assertions this is one that you actually agree with yourself. Your apparent disagreement arises out of your apparent interpretation of the assertion.

If we take the view that ones own happiness is entirely dependent upon ones own degree of self understanding ... in Philosophical parlance knowing oneself is the primary motive for an intellectual and even an intelligently led life.

If you read the pamphlet 'The soul of man Under Socialism' by Oscar Wilde,

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

Here you will encounter the view (often referenced by Zizek) that : 'Charity degrades and demoralizes 'It is immoral to treat the ills caused by private property by private property itself'

https://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g

The sentiment and idea here is inherent to Rand's justified rejection of extreme Socialism.

Independence in the sense that Rand speaks of, is a pure essential independence that includes a rejection of dependence upon the accumulation of material wealth and superfluity as a means of self expression, success or self identity. Rand's protagonists place no real value upon the accumulation of private property; they are independent of it. Rand's genius is that she creates the uncompromising alternative of a celebration of the self, as a counter argument to the success that is associated with material wealth.

This rejection of the material, is far purer and more philosophically sound that the current notion that there is no moral consequence to the accumulation of personal wealth, and that one can then do 'good things' with ones wealth in spite of the evil that is con-sequenced by the generation of that private wealth.

Instead Rand offers the real wealth that arises out of an uncompromising worship of the self... this entails a rejection of wealth and the evil that it entails. A worship of the self in the Rand sense would rid the world of much of the medical (lifestyle) and psychological (depressive) pathologies that socialism must sustains and ultimately foster.

It is the worship of wealth as opposed to the self, that creates both the need and space for the type of socialism that Rand rightly criticizes. The biggest killers in the western world are lifestyle related diseases that are a consequence of depression and unhappiness, and a sense of failure; that are themselves a consequence of a deficiency of self knowledge and self love in the deeper philosophical and or intellectual sense. These feelings and destructive tendencies are the antithesis of self worship and self understanding as Rand depicts these ideals in her characters.

To assert that Rand is against the notion that society should provide wheel chairs for the handicapped and food for the starving... simply represents a fundamental misunderstanding of her work.

Independent people in the Rand sense are not necessarily wealthy (at the expense of others) but rather are independent of the mass psychogenic lure of wealth that most of us are enamored by.

Her's is an example of the type of Philosophy that Nietzsche pleads for... a philosophy of the future,..... it is before its time.

Hopefully she has met the master in the nether world and the two of them are making sweet love and lots of intelligent objectivist babies together.


M

Now we are idealists in the sense that we do indeed construct the world as to how we wish to perceive it
But also, we have evolved to perceive it in a way that keeps us out of trouble
And most importantly we perceive it in a frame that helps us grow.

Martin

No offense but this reads like jibberish. the Double Slit Experiment represents perhaps the single greatest mystery in Physics... at least according to Feynman.

I think Philosophy is better placed to provide a sound answer to the conundrum, better placed than Physics or QM.

Perhaps you might formulate your idea into a clear paragraph of plain english.

M

I suppose the most important contribution that Rand has made to contemporary Philosophy is her assertion of the supremacy of independent thought. What she means by independent thought is the private capacity to evaluate social externals in as independent a manner as possible, ie outside of the collective thinking of ones relevant social groupings.

An extension of Rand's thinking would lead to a rejection of fashion and fad, a rejection of the collective thought that is promulgated via social media and the internet, and a move towards a more independent intellectual social and cultural self reliance.

I suspect that the catastrophic end point of 'collectivization' that Rand warned of is certainly upon us in that Capitalism is 'collective' in its function and the dissemination of material 'branded' products, its dependence upon 'fashion' and other collective-thought modalities. Self reliance and intellectual independence is the antithesis of Capitalism and indeed Capitalism is the primary evil that confronts both the individual, and the species.

I doubt if Rand is considered as an architect and yet her philosophy has had a profound and lasting affect upon architecture, not many philosophers can claim as extensive an influence upon another field of human endeavor.

Whether one likes it or not 'objectivism' (old or new) is a Philosophy in its own right, and Rand may be found at it's contemporary 'fountainhead'. It is not surprising that the collective view here should be anti-Rand, and it is perhaps equally unsurprising that Rand's views are in essence anti-collective.

I love her... and when I go to heaven, if the Muslims are right and polygamy is the moral order of the day.... then I will ask her to be one of my many wives.

XXX to Ayn.

[

quote="S;210179"]Rand is entirely correct here. — Marcus de Brun


Oh, my mistake. Everyone who doesn't entirely agree with her on that one is obviously mistaken.

Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. — Marcus de Brun


Unlike Rand, in the eyes of her disciple. :starstruck:

WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? — Marcus de Brun


Sorry, can you speak up a little? I didn't quite catch that.[/quote]


S

What exactly are you trying to say with all of this 'poo poo'

Have you a point to make .....or are you working out some issues?


Would be great to know where all the anti-Rand sentiment is REALLY coming from?? I notice that the latest erudite critique of her work comes from a philosopher who has never even read Rand, but is wise enough to assume that she is no philosopher ??????

Are we here for philosophy or therapy or Kindergarten?

M

And that's much more qualified than what she said. I can only go on the quote given. — Baden

If one reads the Fountainhead, Rand's notional construct of what freedom means is typified in the persona of the protagonist (Roark) Who lives for pleasure in the intellectual or deeper Epicurean sense.

This is the type of approach that validates much of Thoreau's thought, and much of Nietzsche's thought.

M

"The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action" — Andrew4Handel

In a general sense she is entirely true and this is the cornerstone of Epicurean philosophy.

M

Is this a discussion of Rand or Social welfare states? I happen to live in one and am very fond of socialism. Rand's criticism of socialism runs a little deeper and is deserving of a little thought.

She is on the one hand being accused of not being an "official" philosopher and in the same breath being accused of being a Political Philosopher which she is certainly not.

Rand is respect worthy because she offers philosophical guidance in the interaction between the individual and society, not inverse, vis the role of society in regulating the individual and cultivating his/her dependence upon the state.

She points to the failure of socialism to foster intellectual independence and personal freedom. Freedom in the truly American or Thoreauian sense is her objective, not the end of socialism. She is perfectly correct to call for the revision of socialism when it impinges upon freedom of the Howard Roark variety.

The new socialism and collectivism is the internet, fashion, fad and collective thought EG the usual Rand bashing that goes on among all the official philosophers.

M

Ayn Rand: The way everybody feels, except more consciously. I feel that it is terrible, that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until, and unless, all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected. It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality.

Rand is entirely correct here.

You have offered no counter argument to her point (if indeed you get her point).

Ayn Rand: I object to the idea that the people have the right to vote on everything.

Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. Democracy gave America and the world Donald Trump.

What exactly are you trying to criticize? Are you merely wheeling out the usual cry from the herd that Democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and any criticism of socialism necessitates social cruelty or gas chambers and such.

WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? I hear only the usual grunting of from the herd!

Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. Nietzsche has said the same thing over and over again..... Are you suggesting that she has some secret sinister cruel intent for humanity?

Rand is calling for independence and subsequently FREEDOM, as opposed to the continued manufacture of social dependence and personal paralysis.
M

You seem to like Nietzsche a lot, which is understandable. Are you depressed too — Posty McPostface

To be awake, to be alive, to think and to interact with others in an honest way to see the world... is to be depressed.

Yes indeed I am depressed, it makes me happy to know that i am depressed. I am bitter, angry and intolerant. But I have my pills and they work in that they keep me alive.

My pills are: my love of myself, my suspicion that although often alone in my thinking.... I am distinct from the herd in that I can think for myself and am not a slave, my love for my wife, who is more kind and more beautiful than me, my children who remind me that despite my intellectual impotence, nature has allowed me to make something beautiful....., food, drink, my bicycle, sex, music, nature devoid of people, books that unfold the thought of great thinkers, solititude

I take great comfort from the fact that I am depressed.. if I was not depressed I would probably be stupid.

M

Oh, so we're in agreement, cool.

We are indeed in agreement on most things. We do not know each other but from an objective analysis of much of what you write, you appear to me (I may be wrong) to have an abundance of kindness in your heart. I know that sounds like having some smoke blown up your ass, or perhaps wishy washy stuff, however I mean it in the sense that one might observe that you are wearing a blue shirt or a red tie. The assertion that you have kindness in much of what you write, is not meant as a compliment simply an observation.

The reason for the observation is twofold. In the first instance I believe that kindness is an illconsidered form, variant, or essential component of true and worthy intelligence. Without kindness intellectuality is functionally retarded, morally redundant and often dangerous and destructive. Kindness is not measured in IQ testing and as such IQ is no reflection of true intelligence. Neitzsche for example is considered as intelligent but unkind, intolerant or even heartless, Schopenhauer is often characterised as such. A common criticism of Nietzsche is that the Nazi's were fans of his philosophy. If one overlooks Nietzsche's kindness there is much bitterness in his philosophy, and one can never read Nietzsche properly if one looses sight of the fact that he was as Christian as Christ, perhaps more so. He expected much of mankind, too much perhaps. However one only 'expects' when there is a hope of return. True misanthropy is pure ambivalence.

Unfortunately kindness is too often born out of suffering. Those who have rarely suffered are rarely kind. To be tolerant of others, one must must experience an intolerance for ones owns foibles. Intolerant people usually have the greatest tolerance or immunity to their own failings..

Often the worst kind of suffering is an intolerance for the self, self critcism, self doubt, self loathing... these are the bedrock of depression. most depressives are kind as a consequence of self inflicted suffering.

However once one has learned to be kind, the time for self-loathing or depression should come to an end, or at least be checked in a serious manner. Happiness is ones entitlement. The kindness of the depressive is an essential ingredient to the moral compass of humanity. Philosophy cannot and will not endure unless it is constructed upon a kindness. There are a few kind people on this forum, yourself, bittercrank and a few others come to mind. Your kindness (and that of others) makes a difference to this forum... it is one of the reasons I continue to read and write on this forum. The kindness in the world is one of the reasons I choose to continue living. When that kindness does not extend to the self in the form of tolerance and acceptance... dangerous self destructive things can happen.

As stated I believe that kindness is often born out of suffering and or a degree of depression. If Trump for example or people like him are ever to become kind, they would first need to become depressed and will also need to be erudite and intelligent. When erudition and kindness are present in the company of a single person... there is a good chance that person is worthy of friendship and an even greater possibility that he or she has something to say that is worth listening to.

Depression as such gives birth to kindness and kindness is the quintessential companion to intelligence.

Therefore I do not agree with dis-identity. one must identify thoroughly with ones depression, meet it head on, understand it and eventually overcome it.. by accepting the aspects of self that are the subject of depressive feelings.

There is a slightly interesting discussion on the forum in relation to Ayn Rand... and the criticism of her work is (as usual) constructed upon a lack of understanding of her particular form of 'kindness'. Which is little different to Nietzsche in that she too expects too much of mankind.

Where kindness is lacking there is no philosophy and when it is overlooked Philosophy is being misunderstood, when it does not extend to the self the consequence is depression.

Be kind to yourself... you deserve it!

M

"There's always stuff that can be dis-identified from"

One (by definition) has only one self to identify with. The true and entire identity of the self . Dis-identity can never be accomplished in any real form, other than schizophrenia (which may be an unfortunate consequence of the unfortunate attempt)

Dis-identity is therefore ultimately pathological and is merely a euphemism for denial that is deemed essential by the self for the sake of the self, however all that is being facilitated is self delusion and unhappiness and perhaps ultimately self destructive pathology .

Be yourself... no compromise. If the true version of that self appears 'wrong' or immoral, then the basis of that morality must be examined, and or the actual truth of self is not really being understood by the self it may not be a truth but merely a self delusion.

Human beings strive to be happy and true happiness does not necessitate or entail immorality or harm to others or to self. As such the truth should be embraced and not feared, if it is to be feared.. perhaps it is not really a truth but a poorly understood aspect of the self.

Self knowing is perhaps the very purpose to human existence... dis-identity is its antithesis.


"So, people who are depressed, anxious, or some other ailment, have no use in trying to dis-identify from those labels and their negative connotations? I think not. "

'labels' come from 'the other' They should not be avoided, they should be smashed into little pieces of dust and blown into the ether. If the self labels the self then the self has become the enemy of the self. Fuck labels.

M

"She dismisses this evidence and assumes with no reason that anyone that doesn't act under her definition of selfishness and desires things like social justice and redistribution of wealth has wrong motives or is brainwashed etc."

What evidence have you for this egregious interpretation of Rand?

Interesting that there has yet to be a single quote here from Rand. merely a collection of; we the angry nobodies throwing stones at someone who is unquestionably guilty of being a somebody. The process is not philosophical it is simply intellectual onanism. The bane of discourse on this forum.

“The crowd would have forgiven anything, except a man [or woman] who could remain normal under the vibrations of its enormous collective sneer.”
The Fountainhead.

I see little here but sneering and in this sense the sneering is at the self rather than Rand herself.

As yet still not one actual evidence based criticism of Rand's ideas.

Very entertaining at least.

M

If it is impartial to right and wrong then it cannot exist because within such a truly impartial space.. there is nothing to dis-identify from.

There is nothing in ones identity that one needs to distance ones self from... nothing at all! The distance becomes pathology illness and unhappiness, because the distance the dis-identity is a move away from the truth of the self.

There is nothing wrong with being oneself en toto. There is everything wrong in the compromise.

I'm off to bed so might be late to reply further

M

Ah! I knew it was going to raise its ugly head. wrong and right.

Fuck wrong and right. Listen to Nietzsche and move beyond right and wrong.

Fuck wrong...

The problem with disidentification is that it sees a 'wrong' as wrong...

There is no wrong... with the self.. there is nothing to dis-identify from if one kills the wrongness of the wrong and loves the self.

M

Because its validity or the need for it arises out of internal conflicts such as the following:

"I think I lean towards being straight"

It is the uncertainty here that legitimizes or creates the potential horizon for 'disidentification'

M

The philosophical conflict between Hoard Roark's ideology and that of Keating and Ellsworth Touhey, is a profound personal and social philosophy, one that is as relevant and real today as it was when The Fountainhead was first published.

Kafka's 'K'
Joyces 'Bloom'
Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.. are all as richly philosophical as Rand's Howard Roark.

These authors may not have been "official" Philosophers. however Greek Philosophy owes much of its depth to Greek Tragedy.

M



M

I think you might be right in the sense that you do not 'wish' to discuss the issue, but that is a little different to the notion that one 'cannot' discuss the issue.

The issue (if it can even be called an issue) is perhaps most deserving of discussion... at least with the self, as it is deeply personal and deeply relevant

These are the sexual orientations that I believe exist.

Gay
Straight
Confused/ashamed

M

Complete BS (IMOP) the only thing that is more BS is the notion of an asexual person.

M

No that is not my point, and apologies for the question.

In my experience deep depression comes from unhappiness about the deepest of things. being loved, sharing love is probably the deepest and most fundamental 'things' for us all.

For most men, love and sexuality are intricately intertwined. Lots of men are unhappy because they have not found real, deep, meaningful love... this I think is the main antidote to depression, and often the barrier to this can be sexuality.

Sex and orgasims are mother nature's anti-depressant.. and when they come (no pun intended) in the form of a meaningful relationship.. the antidote is far better and more enduring than prozac, poetry or philosophy.


I guess what I am trying to say is that if one truly identifies with oneself in a deeply honest way... there is little to dislike and even less to dis-identify with.

M

Posty

This question is totally out of order and I should not be asking it ... straight out... and I absolutely do not wish to cause any offence.. so please please ignore same or tell me to fuck off and mind my own business if you find it offensive. However I do think it has an impact on ones philosophy and ones depression

What is your sexual orientation?

M

Depression is part of who and what you are. If you're not depressed then you are blind or numb to reality... and trying to get rid of ones depression is like asking to become blind. I love my depression, it makes me hate the world and reminds me that the greater portion of humanity is deserving of little more than disgust and pity. As a consequence of this depressive view, the opposites; nature, animals, philosophy, art, litterature, food, old cars, whiskey, old buildings, culture mythology, my bicycle, and the rare encounter with an intelligent thinking human... fill me with consummate delight, a happiness and joy that makes the depression entirely worthwhile.

When you feel down, have a wank, look out the window, get drunk, make muffins, go for a walk, fuck the world.. it is only ugly wherever there are people and there should be no one else inside your soul (whatever that is when its at home).

M

The fact that you have begun a metaphysical dialogue in respect of installation art would indicate that one can have a metaphysical experience re same.

According to Bukowski, you can have a metaphysical experience tying your shoelace.

M

"I quoted what you yourself claimed and then I disputed it with a reasonable argument. Unheard of! I don't know what I was thinking.

"Nietzsche did nothing wrong? Ludicrous. Nothing to dislike about Plato? Ludicrous. Wittgenstein? Kierkegaard? Russell? Hume? Spinoza? Ludicrous"

Are you really asserting that you are arguing whether or not 'Rand did something wrong', the reference to 'wrong doing' is little more than a figure of speech. On balance, given her enormous contribution to both literature and to Philosophy... Rand did nothing wrong (like Nietzsche et al). I have little doubt that she told a lie, farted at the dinner table or lost her temper like any human being. That occasionally she was misunderstood and occasionally deemed 'wrong'.. and in this sense... she may have done wrong. But this is a rather infantile basis to construct a philosophical criticism upon.

As yet you offer no criticism of Rand... just a rant at me (which is fine)

When you've chilled a bit (smoke a joint maybe.. it works for some) Do please have a go at formulating a Rand criticism that extends a little further than the average inappropriate flatlulism.

I'm a big fan of hers and would love to be educated on her 'wrongs'.

So please share

M

Bizarre, the thread is about Rand but you'd rather have an irrelevant rant instead...???

Rand would be heartily amused I'm sure.

My point exactly ..... You offer nothing concrete just whinning for the joy of whinning

Something to say about Rand? Then say it?

M

I imagine that Rand would enjoy this thread very much. The criticism of her is mostly of the Ellsworth Touhey variety.... It has even been stated on this thread without any apparent shame that she wasn't 'officially' a philosopher.

I Wonder what Nietzsche would make of being an official philosopher?

There is nothing to dislike about Rand, she did nothing wrong.

People generally people of the official variety like to make themselves feel important with criticism, and the criticism itself has less substance than whatever its object is supposed to. Rand was a good philosopher with a great idea. She was a writer first and was no less a philosopher than Kafka.

If you have some criticism then back it up... Rather than the usual self serving 'criticism'

What was she wrong about and why?

What's wrong with the argument? It's impossible to doubt the existence of a thinker if thought is taking place. To doubt would require a doubter. — TheMadFool

This is the point or thrust of the current conversation. Does doubt require the doubter? Is thought dependent upon/come after the thinker? Is it 'generated/manufactured by the thinker?

These are all essentially the same question in the sense that the endogenous manufacture of thought is presumed in the affirmative and is undermined in the negative. The positive affirmation is precious in that it is essential to the fixed firm and somewhat essential belief in an autonomous self. Hence it is rigidly adhered to.

Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, and to a greater or lesser extent; deductive reasoning and empiricism have all answered a general 'No' to this question. I am not going to list specific quotations to support this assertion but would welcome any evidence to the contrary. In other words if you feel that Nietzsche Spinoza or Schopenhauer were in fact supporters of the Cartesian and general notion of endogenous thought manufacture, I would ask you to offer some evidence. This might facilitate the dialogue to move forward into this 'new' space, rather than backwards over the same ground.

The 'No' represents an entirely NEW direction for Western Philosophy, a view of the cosmos that Spinoza somewhat formalized in his Ethics. Ultimately a priori thought or knowledge (even in the Kantian sense) requires a deterministic view of the Universe. One cannot freely manufacture ones thought if thought is antecedent to the I. It is more complex and requires more presumption upon presumption to proceed with the 'thinking I', than to explore the simpler and more logical path requiring exogenous thought and a subsequently determined Universe.

Recently Gravity, has been found to be a 'wave'. Why must thought be imprisoned within the selfish and primitive notion of a self. If we can set it free from the self it might be examined with a little bit of scientific accuracy rather than the usual selfish and ultimately religious palaver.

My principal reason for beginning this discussion is the fact that recent developments in QM bring us to the point of questioning whether the Universe is determined or not determined.

I suspect that determinism is in essence quite simply another formulation of THE cardinal criticism of the Cogito: vis determinism mandates an antecedence of all thought and sequential behaviors, but not all aspects of thought.

"I" do not think that a negation of the cogito negates a self, and I do not think that determinism lacks the potential for certain freedoms. However I do think that QM mandates a new departure for philosophy if we could only get our proverbial A into G, and stop going over the same ground over and over again.....

M

.

When you say "thought exists a priori," what do you mean? I suspect from your usage that you do not know what a priori means - can you clarify?

There are a couple of meanings one might apply to a priori and I had expected the context to infer the particular meaning. In the litteral sense, a priori means 'comes before': 'thought exists/comes before the thinking' would perhaps be more clear. The mind does not generate thought but rather experiences thought or engages with it.

There is then the Kantian notion of 'a priori knowledge', knowledge that is independent of all experience. I am considering that knowledge is synonymous with, or at least a derivation of 'thought'. If so, then a priori 'thought' is the source of knowledge a priori or otherwise. I see no great distinction between Shopenhauer's notion of 'will', Kants notion of 'a priori knowledge', or Freud's notion of subconscious instinctual imperatives, but all appear to be contingent upon being antecedant to or coming before the 'thinking I'.

Your Phil Prof might well have written 'No thought no mind' , rather than his assertion 'No mind no thought'

I do not belive that 'thought' is manufactured in the mind (this is simplistic and appealing yet it makes little sense, for reasons alluded to throughout this discussion) rather it (thought) exists as a priori knowledge in both the Kantian and the literal sense.

M

With the rarest of exception: All greatly popular men are necessarily great spoofers. Descartes was a great man who was very popular (partly) because he was a great spoofer, Nietzsche had him figured out. Nietzsche was not a spoofer.

Spinoza was a contemporary of Descartes and he was certainly not a spoofer (he paid the usual price). Interestingly Spinoza pointed out Descartes' spoofing to Descartes (i think he wrote him a letter) but the latter never responded, because he was caught up in the spoofs that are needed to preserve the initial spoof.

I think the only thing God apparently loves more than a trier, is a good spoofer.

M

Descartes' project, which was to gently wrest control over intellectual progress from an inane Church and provide another foundation for it. — frank

"TO THE MOST WISE AND ILLUSTRIOUS THE DEAN AND DOCTORS OF THE SACRED
FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN PARIS.

"The motive which induces me to present to you this Treatise is so excellent, and, when you become
acquainted with its design, I am convinced that you will also have so excellent a motive for taking it
under your protection, that I feel that I cannot do better, in order to render it in some sort acceptable to you, than in a few words to state what I have set myself to do. I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be demonstrated by philosophical rather than theological argument. For although it is quite enough for us faithful ones to accept by means of faith the fact that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it certainly does not seem possible ever to persuade infidels of any religion, indeed, we may almost say, of any moral virtue, unless, to begin with, we prove these two facts by means of the natural reason."

Renes Descartes.

Introduction to the Meditations.

By Jingo Frank: if he was just being 'gentle'... then he was some man for the spoofs!

M

Can we agree that this thing which caused the existence of the thought ought to be called "I"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely NOT. From where did you pull the chain of assumption that leads you come up with the notion that the "I" is the cause and 'thought' the effect?

This is the very (failed) paradigm that is under scrutiny here. If thought exists apriori the 'I' cannot function as its causation.

You then insist upon the uninvited and unqualified imposition of TIME upon thought, vis the assumption that a cause 'causes' its associated 'effect'. This too is another enormous assumption that is dealt with to some degree by Hume.

If you are dead set on a 'beginning' for the independent thing that is 'thought', then surely it (thought) should be permitted (like every 'thing' else) to share in the Singularity preceding the Bang, and have its beginnings there. The physicist has taken greater liberties with ALL the things of material reality... and apparently gotten away with much nonsense.

You tender the presumption that thought has some temporal quality (it may have) but you have taken the liberty of putting it all together under the assumed supremacy of the 'I'

You are apparently in monogamous love with your pancake.

M

I left out books on the 'water of life' because the price tag and the taste buds are the general arbiter elegantarium.

M

"It is impossible that a thought could will itself into existence."

Why have you left the ball park and started a different game.

The origin of thought, its 'initiation' or coming into existence applies new variables to thought vis an origin and a temporal plane (initiation). These may well be variables that are applicable to thought, however they are 'I' variables and pertain to the existence of a material self and material things.

If thought is indeed apriori the 'I' thing is a composite thing, or a thing animated, given its temporality and its manifest form, through an engagement or relationship with apriori thought.

A pancake is not expected to play by the same rules that might apply to flour and water, it is a composite thing, a new thing.

You cannot expect the apriori to follow the same rules and behave in the same manner that the composite follows and adheres too.

We are starting with the reality that it (thought) exists apriori to the 'I' and as such is independent of the 'I'. That the 'I' is a pancake and subject to the rules of pancakes, brings nothing to the table. (other than a pancake).

Let us attempt to finish this game, before we start desert.

M

Everything including floom is quite simply .....thought.
And if you disagree, well thats thought too.
I think?

If you are indeed a teen, then there is a significant likelyhood that you are stupid. I say this because I was very stupid when I was a teen and am only slightly less so now that I am old(er).

Happiness is the purpose of existence and you are right to seek it. However the objective is transient and it changes with time. What you think is happiness now, will not be happiness for you in ten years, or perhaps even ten days.

The good news is however that some aspects of happiness remain constant, and if you achieve these you will have some solid lasting hapinesses to see you through the rough times. There will be rough times and many of most or them will be the result of your own stupidity.. at least thats how its been in my life so far, and I have 2/3 of my allotted time finished.

Essentially the most important ingredient to happiness is freedom. The next most important thing is to know what to do with your freedom once you have achieved it.

You have said that you want to travel. This is stupid, because it simply means that you wish to escape. You should begin your quest for self understanding by reading Walden Pond by Thoreau. Therein you will find a definition of freedom. You do not have to travel to experience life. You are life and it is all around you.

Teenagers are generally plagued with an obsession to belong somewhere and to something. plagued by instincts and urges, like the urge to have sex and to belong to a peer group. If you are looking to travel the world it may be because you feel you do not fit in, to your current social circumstance. If you are smart (smart people know how stupid they are) then you probably don't fit in, because smart people not only know how stupid they are but they also recognise that most of the people they are surrounded by are also stupid.

Effectively we are all stupid, some more than others. The key thing is to try to address your stupidity. This can be acheived by some formal education, but mostly you have to read good books and listen to good music. This is generally the type of book and music that the majority of people don't listen to or read. (Like Thoreau for example).

If you are chilled out, and you like yourself the way you are, and you have a desire to unstupify yourself, you will be attractive to the opposite sex, because these are crucial ingredients to being independent and being independent in your thoughts and your deeds is a crucial ingredient into being cool... being cool makes other people want to hang out with you and occasionally.. have sex with you.

If you are a teenager you probably want to have sex.. don't try to hard to have sex, learn how to be cool and the sex will follow.

Read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, if you want to learn how to be independent, and therefore ..cool.

You need money to be independent and to be cool. Therefore you need a job and unless you have an education you are likely to have to spend most of your time working.

Ask yourself what you really like to do and whatever it is, turn it into a college degree... you can do a degree in anything. If you like philosophy then do a degree in it and understand it properly.

The world owes you nothing, and you have to earn your freedom from it. If you live in a white western country then an education is obtained with relative ease. An education will help you out of your stupidity and it will purchase you your freedom, if you are careful and you choose to educate yourself in something you like then you will enjoy it.. but you have to be very honest with yourself first.

Be honest with yourself.

Work will set you free, then its up to you to cultivate the wisdom to know what to do with that freedom.

Stay away from drugs, work hard, laugh love, be independent in your thinking see 'God' in nature and in yourself, read read read, masturbate often... but not too often.

Most importantly be happy and try not to be too stupid.

M

In no particular order:
Walden Pond
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Catch 22
The Outsider (audiobook, read by Kenneth Branaugh)
A Confederacy of Dunces
Waiting for Godot
The Story of Philosophy By Will Durant
The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud
Ullyses by Joyce (audiobook \Unabridged RTE players)
Dubliners by Joyce
Crime and Punishment
The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann
Einstein's Relativity
Either the Bible, the Koran, or a good introduction to Buddhism.
All of Donald Trumps tweets
Some basic biology texts and something on Climate Change
Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil
Schopenhauers the world as will and representation.
Spinoza' Ethics
Jamie Olliver's ten minute meals
A good book on how to have good sex (if indeed you are averse to watching porn)

When your done reading... learn the meaning of good whiskey (teelings or green spot are a good place to start), and start livin the shit out of life!

M

I have avoided Gassendi' objections because he comes at the problem with the same celestial bias that contaminates Descartes thought beyond his second meditation, and (through no fault of his own) Gassendi is unawares of recent relavent developments/observations in the realm of QM.

Nietzsche (for our purposes here) identifies the 'problem' quite succinctly, he obviously brings no particular God-bias to the table and furthermore he addresses the 'problem' to The Philosopher of the Future.

We unquestionably occupy Nietzsche's future and there are indeed a few philosophers here on the forum.

Your previous post in respect of 'that' and 'what', appears to exclude a temporal variable. 'That' .....is atemporal and 'what' is necessarily temporal. The 'that' becomes the subjective 'what' only upon the application of temporality at t+1. Your elephant becomes and begins to run, contingent upon time.

It appears as though Descartes quantum leap from thought to the 'I' includes but does not consider the application of temporality and is a simillar extension from a 'that' to a 'what'.

p = ∃x ∈ S [ φx ]

is fixed, however the Universe is (apparently|) unfixed.

p(t1) = ∃x ∈ S [ φx(t+1) ]

?

M