Philosophy should help with that since it has been said to be most appropriately thought of as 'love of wisdom'; but as long as it is thought of as an intellectual diversion or a collection of language games i don't think it will turn out to be of much use. — Janus

That ties into the idea of Socratic ignorance.
Socrates was the wisest because of his ignorance of wisdom. Socrates uses irony to examine philosophical pressuppotions, as if to reach an understanding. The irony is, that he always arrived at the conclusion that we know nothing about our philosophical presuppositions, and as they are, they tell us nothing.

Banno: just think if it as a language game. Your participation is not required.

Indeed, if what you want to do is to stay inside the bottle. — Banno

Inside the bottle is where philosophy takes place. Outside of it you are just drifting in the aether and screaming into the void about your objection to the myriad bottles of philosophical discourse.

The only way I can see that it could be arguable that we "transcend nature" is that our possession of language allows us to be reflectively aware of the potential dangers of following our instincts, but it's not looking like that is going to help us out of the pickle we are in, because at the moment it is mostly "business as usual" sustained by copious denial and empty rationalization. — Janus

Well, philosophy promises nothing. In fact, from the very beginning, Socrates pointed out how useless it is. So what else is philosophy if nothing else than "business as usual"? I don't know what crazy expectations some of us may hold of philosophy, but I assure you it is delusion.

Give us some credit, we are talking about the individual and the collective. Just consider those as analogues to subject and object

Even if we do, by some seeming miracle, find a replacement for fossil fuels, that will only be on account of exploiting nature in some other way, which may or may not turn out to be sustainable. So, much for our much vaunted "transcendence of nature"!

You may or may not have gathered from what I have said here that I am no "scientist" (in the sense of 'proponent of scientism'). :wink: — Janus

Then, I gather you have a bit of a pessimistic view towards human nature, qua. some sort of parasite on earth. I'm inclined to agree that aptly describes the inherent nature of the human collective. And that is why I hold the individual to be primary.
Only as an individual can one avert assimilation by the collective nature. Becoming an individual, rather than a number in a crowd, is the only possibility for redemption.

the industrial revolution would have been impossible without fossil fuels — Janus

But the natural state of fossil fuel is deep underground, extraction removes it from it's natural condition. Or do you say that it's not a fossil fuel until it is powering motors? Of course that would necessitate that a motor is a natural phenomenon too.

Again, not denying that there was rigging involved, but you can't hand-wave the fact that there was strong (and a majority) support for Clinton. — Maw

During the primaries, it was evident to me that Sanders had a better chance against Trump. Perhaps the majority of Democrats are gullible, and instead of going with the stronger candidate, went with who they were told to. Remember how Sanders ragdolled Clinton in their debates.

Imagine what he would've done to Trump.

It may be impossible, but if so it's impossible because of the way matter behaves, not because the rules of grammar say so. — Michael

Is it possible to put it another way?

What if nothing changed physically, but everyone on earth began calling houses flowers, and flowers houses? How would that affect the landscape of meaning?

What do you mean by "transcend nature"? — Janus

Remember I consider the human part to be natural. So...I am just making a connection between technology as human artifice, and the technological trend towards transhumanism. So, I conclude that the degree of sophistication of human technology can exempt the human from the necessity of nature, whereas nothing else in nature seems capable of accomplishing that.

Maybe not philosophy but I'd say we need science to determine that the molecules that make up a house can't feasibly rearrange into the molecules that make up a flower. — Michael

I don't think science can provide such a guaranteed. Science can give us a near infallible degree of certainty regarding the occurence of particular phenomena under fixed conditions, but it is incapable of determining the necessity of any fixed condition in nature, unless predicated on another fixed condition. But this just leads into an infinite regress, and never a guarantee.

The ethical is an immediate relation for the individual, who is responsible as the deciding agent. He is personally tasked with conforming himself to how the world should be.

When, the ethical is represented in a story, it removes the reader from his immediate relation to the ethical. Although it may have an edifying effect, it has no actual bearing on the ethical as an immediate reality for the individual, in which he becomes the deciding agent. As the reader, he becomes a passive spectator, relating himself to the ethical indirectly through the protagonist. In other words, the reader, by relating himself to ethical existence of another, can only take on his responsibility as the deciding agent vicariously. Hence it is indirect.

Another quote that I think is relevent:

What should interest us is the question: how do we compare these experiences [i.e. houses turn into flowers versus houses don't turn into flowers]; what criterion of experience do we fix for their occurrence? — Wittgenstein, PI, p89, ~322

Or either party breaks up in two. — ssu

Interesting. That thought never occurred to me. But now that I think about all the discord in the two parties, it's becoming more and more of a possibility.

Talking sticks

It's the limbic system. — S

Oh yes. The magical limbic system explains it all

I still think your Wittgenstein quote was appropriate. — fdrake

I always thought that quote to alluded to the notion that induction is impossible to determine with any certainty. That there is no reason a man couldn't transform into a tree. And if that happened, what implications would that have concerning identity?

oh, sorry for over stepping the bounds, and thanks for the clarity

All this seems to be straying from what it is to exist. What does it matter to my existence what mode of expression best expresses the truth? When I am sharing an experience with a friend, the last thing on my mind is the mode through which we are directly able to relate, I am too busy relating

Creedence stomps the stones

Poor terrapin stationed in her doo doo mindedness

Doo doo

Ok, then dodge the question.

You asked me and I responded promptly and directly. "I want to know exactly what you think that "opposite" is."

And you answer:

I'm not interested in typing some long, very generalized thing. I think it's rather a problem on this board that people tend to do that. There's usually no focus. People ramble on, bringing up 15-20 different topics in a long post and not really addressing any of them. I just wanted to simply correct a conceptual misunderstanding. If you disagree or don't understand what I said that's fine, but ask specific questions, keep things focused, etc. — Terrapin Station

Great philosophy guy

I was just giving you a chance to build your position

I want to know exactly what you think that "opposite" is.

Please elaborate.

Could you please rephrase your explanation, I didn't understand ?

But the opposite of that wouldn't be decisions that are not influenced by anything. The opposite would simply be some departure from strict causality. — Terrapin Station

Why?

He is addressing what you are talking about, i thought you might be interested.

under what conditions are 'Get me a glass of water please' or 'Go away' or "in heaven I am a wild ox, on Earth I am a lion" true? — fdrake

The only universal condition is that of the subject, which is about as particular as it gets.

See what javra has recently posted.

Sometimes we must assume that what has been said is true in order to work out what it meant - the Principle of Charity. — Banno

Isn't that the basis for understanding?

I would guess, in all ignorance, that understanding is necessary for good philosophical discourse.

In any case, there are perspectives which are irreconcilable in each others terms.

Great topic. Now I have to reconsider something Wittgenstein wrote.

What if something really unheard-of happened? If I, say, saw houses gradually turning into steam without any obvious cause, if cattle in the fields stood on their heads and laughed and spoke comprehensible words; if trees gradually changed into men and men into trees. Now, was I right when I said before all these things happened ‘I know that that’s a house’ etc., or simply ‘that’s a house’ etc.? — Wittgenstein, On Certainty, 1969, p. 67, ~513

I suppose one could psychologise at this point as to why such a negation is so important. A terror of responsibility perhaps? . . . It seems like a refusal to live, almost — unenlightened

That is most likely the case. But on days we're feeling generous, we can attribute it to being lost in speculation.

I'm just amusing myself at their expense, while I wait for that justification. — unenlightened

I totally get it. So let's not agree too much, lest it become a bore

To transform or not to transform? That is the question. — S

:lol:

And: transforming is half the battle.

Transformers came long afterwards so it is likely to be a highly mutated derivation

(Add. But does originality equate to better, I would say so)

Ok then it's settled, I'll be the pretty face, and you be the brain behind the scenes

Perhaps it is impossible to justify since the one making the claim has to disavow his own existence. It is a contradiction in the sense that the will is being negated through an act of the will

Some cynicism is justified. I'd say that that's too cynical. — S

To be fair, Diogenes is one of my greatest influences.

"You know what Hillary says, 'suck my clit and balls.'" ~Eric Cartman, South Park.

Most of what they promise is set up for the sole purpose of u-turning, they don't represent the electorate