sometimes I sleep early and wake up at 2-3am and then go back to sleep at 5-6am — TimeLine

That only happens to me when I accidentally fall asleep early haha - then I'm like "umm I didn't just fall asleep without even eating dinner did I? :’( "

I find that I dream when I have irregular sleeping patters — TimeLine

For me I have dreams towards the morning if I do. So say around 5-10AM if we include weekends.

Perhaps the best place to begin would be Jung, just be careful that you do not end up as Spinoza wrote in Chapter VI 'Of Miracles' - "The masses then style unusual phenomena "miracles" and part from piety, partly for the sake of opposing the students of science, prefer to remain in ignorance of natural causes, and only hear of those things which they know least." — TimeLine

>:O >:O >:O

I always understood that Spinoza regarded seeing sub specie aeternitatis as the highest form of rational knowledge, so yes it would obviously "also include rational knowledge" if this is correct. As I said, it's a long time since I read Spin. — John

Sub Specie Aeternitatis is a way of seeing reality non-empirically and it contrasts with sub specie durationis. Imaginative, rational and intuitive - these are forms of knowing, with the first one being inadequate, and the second two being adequate, with intuitive being the highest.

what else could support it other than 'what feels right', on whatever level that is operating? — John

Reason?

I'm saying that how he makes this identification is not as convincing to me as how Schopenhauer does so. — Thorongil

Why is Schopenhauer's identification of:

Schopenhauer's identification of bodily movement with acts of willing is much more convincing to me. — Thorongil

More convincing than Spinoza's? What is actually Spinoza's deficiency?

Yes, I like to say, with Hegel, that the world is an expression of spirit — John

And you wonder what I mean by world qua Spirit ......................... I mean exactly this kind of mystical nonsense...

I's a very long time ( about twenty years) since I studied Spinoza, but my memory tells me that he thought that seeing things 'under the aspect of eternity' is the highest form of intellectual intuition. — John

Yes, but seeing sub specie aeternitatis also can include rational knowledge, not only what Spinoza calls intuitive knowledge. Both these two forms of knowledge are "adequate".

It's not obvious if you're not familiar with S, but in any case what puzzles me is that you seem to want
to both deny it and affirm it. — John

I affirm it as a rational intuition, not what "feels right".

Of course there will be disagreement as people may have different intellectual intuitions. I don't see why that should surprise you. People's understandings may be on different levels, and sometimes the differences may be only apparent due to interpretive or definitional issues.That doesn't mean that there cannot be a more or most correct intellectual intuition. Remember that all intellectual formulations are necessarily more or less inadequate — John

So again I ask you - if we have different intuitions, how do we determine which one of us is more correct? You'll say you're on a higher level, I'll say I'm on a higher level, who is right? :s

What on earth is purity? — TimeLine

Chastity? Respect for the sacred? That kind of stuff.

I think this was an attempt to connect your moral values politically to align it into a category, albeit a measly one. I instantly saw the logic and connections with the questions and potential result, which makes is easy to manipulate. — TimeLine

In fact quite the contrary :P - I did see the logic of it, and would have said that I agree to it because that fits in with my political view (conservatism) - but I didn't.

I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. — TimeLine

I disagree with this, and I think that any such morality is ultimately an abstraction, completely removing feeling - especially fellow-feeling, compassion - from the equation.

I believe it starts with the individual, then family, then community, and if the individual cannot understanding and apply righteousness, it effects the family and then the community. — TimeLine

As you know, I adopt the opposite starting position. For me it starts with community and asks "How can we live and flourish together?" In fact it starts with community and asks "How is individuality even possible?" For me, the idea of the individual entirely separated from society is incoherent, for the simple reason that none of us are born as individuals. Our individuality develops in society - we are nurtured by society. If it wasn't for society you wouldn't be alive in the first place, much less be an individual. So it's our society that allows us to develop our individuality and know ourselves. In it we move and have our being. It is true that our society is more often than not not harmonious and it becomes better not to take part because of this, but this is only an a posteriori consideration.

If your wife did something bad, you would do your best to save her; for me, if anyone that I knew did something bad I would try to save them and if they do not listen then facing the consequences of justice is the causal result, which would be to lose me as a person and potentially their place in society depending on their actions. — TimeLine

Well if they do not listen there's not much you can do to save them, is there?

This is a tricky one but I too selected slightly agree, only because tactical offences could be beyond the scope of a soldier' understanding and it could jeopardise the result. But then, when you think of WWI and the mass slaughter of soldiers by Hamilton' blunder in Gallipoli. What would have happened if they said no? — TimeLine

Yes, obviously obeying the commander doesn't guarantee a good outcome. But the commander given the fact that he's supposed to have greater knowledge, experience and understanding compared to the soldier is more likely to take the right decision - now of course this doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. So as a principle, it still is right to obey the commander.

What? How? — Thorongil

By this:

The will is still the thing-in-itself for us — Thorongil

And Spinoza may arrive at a similar conclusion, but I think he does so invalidly — Thorongil

How so? He clearly identifies the conatus to be our essence. The conatus is literarily the will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus

Maybe, but I am saying that effectively this is then not really significantly different than Berkeleyanism. — John

Berkeley is a monist, one substance which is mind. But that's an anthropomorphism, that's my only complaint.

Even Spinoza acknowledges this with his "sub specie aeternitatis'. — John

No, he acknowledges it with the third kind of knowledge, scientia intuitiva

I am not clear where Schopenhauer stood on this pivotal issue. — John

Obviously he accepted it.

What 'feels right' is not more likely than rational empirical investigation to be right about empirical matters, obviously, but we are not talking about that, are we? — John

Why would we consider it to be more likely to be right in other non-empirical matters? It's on these non-empirical matters that we in fact disagree.

the in itself as mindless, which would just be back to the materialist view that things just 'brutely' exist, wouldn't it? — John

How can the in-itself be mindless if mind arises out of it? :s

If you accept that the in itself or in Spinoza's terms 'the one substance' is both an infinite extension and an infinite mind (and an infinite number of other attributes, of which we can know only these two) then would not time, space and causality originate, just as we and our minds must be thought to, in that greater mind (and for Spinoza, body) that is God? So, even if time, space and causality are 'generated' by the human mind, since the human mind is 'generated' by God, they must also, ultimately be 'generated' by God, no? — John

As I said your deductive brain is working well :P

You wouldn't though, would you? (Because you're crazy). :D — Sapientia

:-}

An ethical point of view is the only relevant point of view, given that we're discussing moral foundations. So unless you're suggesting that a pragmatic point of view is the ethical point of view, then that's not relevant. And if you are, how so? — Sapientia

No I'm not suggesting pragmatism as a point of view, I'm merely illustrating that acts of betrayal say something about the lack of character of the traitor.

That's very obviously one sided. They're not good for nothing, nor scum if what they're doing is the right thing, which it could be. — Sapientia

They can't be doing the right thing by betrayal. The right thing is opposing immorality, but not by immorality.

They're also pragmatically valuable for the other side, given that they can be advantageous, in that, for example, they can provide intel about the enemy, exposing weakness. — Sapientia

Yes, hence why it is suggested to use them, and then throw them away, because otherwise they become dangerous.

And no, someone who has committed an act of betrayal - a traitor - won't necessarily do so again, nor do they necessarily lack commitment outside of that very narrow context, in which lacking commitment isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Nor do they necessarily mean disaster. And you're using these emotive terms which connote something bad, but bad things happening to bad people is often deserved. — Sapientia

An act of betrayal is immoral, and betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it.
A traitor

When reading Schopenhauer, however, I thought, and still think, his notion of the will is the best solution. — Thorongil

Yes but even Schop. abandons it for thing-in-itself ultimately. And don't forget that Spinoza does have the equivalent of will - it is called the conatus, which is our essence. I think Schopenhauer also anthropomorphises the Will to a certain degree - Spinoza does no such thing, that's why his system remains in my eyes pure.

Oh god, I hate that video. The voice, special effects, and music are way too pretentious. I actually think I was banned by the original maker of the video for pointing this out too. — Thorongil

>:O LOOOL! I never comment on youtube, but I agree with you on those points. He does point out the central bit regarding neutral monism though, hence why I was reminded of it. And its extravagance makes it memorable :-O >:O

Surely you don't believe that the truth about us can be discovered by empirical investigation or logic, do you? — John

Why not? I don't see how "what feels right" is anymore likely to be correct than empirical and rational investigation, in fact quite the contrary. According to "what feels right" everyone has a different opinion, and there is no way to decide what is right. For example, look at us two. For you it is intuitively obvious that the Trinity feels right. For me it isn't. Who is right and how can this be determined? Certainly not by appealing to what feels right, because that's different for both of us, and therefore we cannot determine according to it. We must determine according to what we have in common - reason and empirical investigation.

All the great religions have asserted, in different ways and with different emphases, the superiority of this way of knowing over the rational discursive intellect — John

Maybe, but then this doesn't make much sense to me. You always see me around here complaining, especially against Wayfarer, with regards to this mental masturbatory mysticism.

Where do you think the scriptures come from in the first place? — John

Insight gained by the natural light of reason.

Can the thing in itself have a point of view? — John

No, I meant point of view as a logical criteria indicating that the thing-in-itself is more fundamental than subject and object, and therefore subject and object are both ideal - not real. Only Substance exists and is divine - the modes and the empirical world are illusory.

But anyway transcendental idealism seems to fall apart in the way put forward by Kant - it's only in the sense of "subject correlated with object and object correlated with subject" that transcendental idealism survives. This transcendental idealism is, well, transcendental. Only from the point of view of the thing-in-itself are subject and object and the entire world qua representation "ideal".

So, you believe on the basis of authority and not on the basis of your own intuitions? — John

Yes, because my intuitions don't tell me anything to be honest with you

of which you have, somewhat confusingly said both that you are "not big on it" and that you "believe it" — John

Yes it's not essential for me - doesn't have much practical import - but I believe it, without knowing what it really means.

because it makes the most intuitive sense to me — John

How come it makes sense? I don't really understand what "intuitive sense" means... You either understand something or you don't...

It doesn't negate the bedrock claim of Schopenhauer's that there can be no object without a subject and no subject without an object. These are correlates. They stand and fall together. Take the subject away and there is no objective world. Take the object away and there is nothing to be conscious of. — Thorongil

Yes, I also agree in fact with this insight. My personal view on metaphysics is probably still closest to Spinoza - one substance with two parallel attributes, thought (idea) and extension (matter). The one substance is the thing-in-itself, and the attributes are the two ways of looking at this same substance. I think this insight is still at its freshest and purest in Spinoza.

neutral monist — Thorongil

This reminded me of this video (note I don't agree with everything there):

However, such a world is not even thinkable without presupposing a subject and so cannot be said to exist with certainty. — Thorongil

Yes, you'd need this more Berkeleyan route into it, rather than the Kantian.

1.Meaning requires truth to have meaning. (circular but true) — Question

Circularity isn't the only issue. Meaning doesn't require truth to have meaning at all. Truth is a property of propositions. Propositions are true if they represent an actual state of affairs. Propositions have meaning even when they are false. The only time when they lack meaning is when they are tautologies or contradictions - then they are nonsense.

2.All objective statements obtain their meaning from the state of affairs they are (subject and object) in the world. — Question

No. They obtain their meaning from the relations they portray between objects as being the case. If this relationship is identical to the one found in the world, then they are also true. But the meaning is the picture they create - whether that picture is true - ie corresponds to the facts - is a different story.

3.For objective statements to be true, a grounding argument/reason is required. — Question

Why would an argument be required? "Outside is raining" doesn't require a grounding argument/reason at all to be true. All that is required is that such a situation obtains in the world.

much of the rest of Schopenhauer's system. — Thorongil

What do you mean much of the rest? It certainly affects the overall structure of it, in quite a significant way. That it doesn't affect a lot of the insights Schopenhauer had, sure.

This is the closest to my view, but I would say that conceptual knowledge, such as what mathematics reveals, is not "void" of any perception, since it is abstracted from perception. — Thorongil

An abstraction is not a perception though. Lines are nowhere to be found in your experience. In fact Berkeley did the right thing and denied the existence of abstractions independently of any perception.

"It is agreed on all hands, that the qualities or modes of things do never really exist each of them apart by it self, and separated from all others, but are mixed, as it were, and blended together, several in the same object. But we are told, the mind being able to consider each quality singly, or abstracted from those other qualities with which it is united, does by that means frame to it self abstract ideas. … Not that it is possible for colour or motion to exist without extension: but only that the mind can frame to it self by abstraction the idea of colour exclusive of extension, and of motion exclusive of both colour and extension"

You have to do the same to be consistent.

Do not mistake the objects of our experience for objects existing independently of experience. No object can exist independently of experience, for all objects presuppose a subject. So there can be no space as an object that exists independently of experience, which you seem to think. Can there be space as an object that exists in experience? No, because I experience no such object. Can there be a physical space based on geometrical and physical models? Yes, and this, I suppose, would the be 4D space-time of modern physics, but these models are themselves based on experience, which, again, does not contain space as a distinct object within it. We don't experience any such 4D space either, as you have noted before, which means it cannot be said to have any independent existence; it's just something that drops out of the model. That it agrees with our experience does not mean it is our experience or that it must be posited as existing outside of experience. So where does that leave us? I say it leaves us positing that space is a priori. It's not something found in experience and can't exist independently of experience. It's an essential ingredient in our ability to experience at all. — Thorongil

Okay fine that works, but this is no longer Schopenhauer's/Kant's position. Your new position has to reformulate what knowledge consists in, in a framework that is separate from S/K, such that there can be purely conceptual knowledge, or simply denying that mathematics consists in knowledge , or re-conceptualising mathematics along different EMPIRICAL lines (like Berkeley - §122 in Principles), and hence denying that mathematics of any kind as is most often interpreted consists in knowledge.

When we discussed politics you confessed to believing in God. Clearly that's not the case, or you wouldn't be asking such silly questions now would you? What's really the case, are you skeptical toward God, or a strong disbeliever? — Metaphysician Undercover

To believe in God doesn't necessarily mean I believe in dualism or existence of the soul prior to birth or after death. I think of God similar to Spinoza. I also believe in existence after death, but I recognise that I have no clue what that means - that's a faith based belief.

Your questions are quite on target. I think you may find some insights with Bergson and if you wish Bohm. — Rich

Yes I will be looking into Bergson, thanks! :)

Then I guess you're too dumb to have this conversation. — The Great Whatever

I may be dumb, but at least I'm honest 8-)

I'm not responding until you stop pretending to be stupid. If you actually are that stupid, then there's also no point in responding, right? — The Great Whatever

There is no pretending here. I can imagine how a ball interacts with a foot, and to imagine that I make appeal to their common nature - that they are both made of atoms. I cannot imagine how a thought interacts with a physical object though. All I know is that there are correlations between the two. These correlations are explained by thought and extension being two attributes of the same substance, which grounds the parallelism between the two.

Okay thanks!

I am Christ returned. Just believe me, you may not understand, but it's the truth (Y) — Heister Eggcart

>:O Blasphemy!

In practical terms it makes all the difference in the world in the way we view and treat life, for those who are exploring the quality of who they are. — Rich

Can you specify what this difference is concretely?

Hmm Bergson seems interesting. Is there anyone who explores Bergsonian ideas in a modern context that I could read as an introduction to his thought?

It's probably what I "care" about most, though, haha. — Heister Eggcart

That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:O

That's true. Maybe they only base your 'label' on your top foundation. — csalisbury

No - look at TGW, he's classified as conservative (despite having care at the top). It's a more complex algorithm I think, but obviously I don't think it's very good :P

They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory. — Rich

Which means very little in practical terms.

Bergson resolved the clumsiness of both monism and dualism. If anything, it may be considered a more process oriented philosophy though he called it a resolution of dualism. — Rich

I have almost 0 knowledge of Bergson, so forgive me, but why does he call it dualism if the two don't have a boundary between each other, but are instead more like a gradation?

You do. It is called instincts, inherited traits inborn skills. — Rich

Right... where do instincts go after death? Instincts apart from the body make little sense for me.

I consider Bergson's a mode of dualism that has dissolved the line between the two. — Rich

That's a form of monism if it has dissolved the line between the two.

What're those scores relative to? I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be, dunno how I'm failing in that category. I wouldn't consider someone loyal if they put up with sluts and cheaters, :-| — Heister Eggcart

Me neither lol. The relative ones are the relative weighting of that respective factor compared with the other factors (that's why they add up to 100%). So that shows that loyalty has a relatively low place in your moral scheme.

The thought is the initial impulse conveyed through the energetic, substantial field which we call bodily matter. There is no hardline between the two, just differences in substantiality. — Rich

I'm asking dualists, not you. You're not a dualist. So be quiet :P

"Some men have a private, all-male club and feminists take them to court, demanding that they open it up to women." — Heister Eggcart

When I saw this one, I said there's something wrong (but not maximum wrongness) with feminists seeking to do this. They should just open women only clubs :P

"Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head." — Heister Eggcart

This one was fucked up - I gave it maximum wrong. I also gave maximum wrong to the cheating ones >:O

Loyalty - 10.6% >:O — Heister Eggcart

We're not doing business together Heister... >:O

Like I said, the first test really measures one's own idea of one's moral foundation. You appear to spend a lot of time grooming your moral self-image, so it's not surprising that the results of the first test would seem more pleasing and correct to you. — csalisbury

Okay but if you analyze my scores, it doesn't seem I fit the left-liberal pattern. For one, left-liberals show a tendency for high scores in care and fairness, low scores in loyalty, authority and purity, and a median score in Liberty. I don't fit that pattern. I have high scores in all of them (with just authority being the lowest). This does actually reflect how I am. But it's not a left-liberal pattern - the assigning algorithm fails in my case. I'm closer to conservatives, but I don't fit in with many conservatives either, but I fit better than with left-liberals.

Do you mean before birth my soul exists like a stone exists? Well one can certainly find a stone, but I doubt they can find my soul before I am born.

"I" refers to a combination of body and soul, so in no sense did "I" exist prior to that combination. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O Then what's the mumbo jumbo of soul existing? In what sense does it exist if it has no experience?

A rock doesn't experience, does that mean it doesn't exist? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, from its point of view it doesn't.

You didn't have any memory before birth therefore you don't remember anything before birth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then in what sense did I exist before birth? No experience means no existence, except as a potential maybe, which doesn't say much.

Please don't be dense. — The Great Whatever

No it's quite serious actually, because I don't understand what you're seeking to say. I don't see instances of thoughts kicking stones. I only see instances of feet interacting with stones and footballs and whatever other physical object. I see thoughts on the other hand interacting only with other thoughts. Where the hell do I see thought interacting with matter?

Why "goes out... into some other realm"? It already is in that other realm. That's what dualism's all about. At death it has lost its influence over the material body. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything?