I hear some of us are rarer birds than that: thinkers.I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. — Carl Sagan
:nerd: :up:If someone claims to have mathematical knowledge it can be demonstrated. Can the same be said of someone who claims to have mystical knowledge? — Fooloso4
So what is 'mind'? AFAIK, basically mind is a recursive (strange looping, phenomenal self-modeling) aspect of More/Other-than-mind – a nonmental activity (process ... anatman), not an entity (ghost-in-the-machine ... X-of-the-gaps), that is functionally blind to its self-recursivity the way, for instance, an eye is transparent to itself and absent from its own field of vision. — 180 Proof
Again, changing the subject – or you're just confused, sir: "metaphysical physicalism", which you claim to "take issue" with, is not synonymous with "scientific materialism". :roll:scientific materialism — Wayfarer
The jist of my criticism of that post: Insofar as mind is nonmind-dependent (i.e. embodied), only conceptions – interpretations – of nonmind are "mind-created" abstractions from nonmind (i.e. mappings of the territory). Consequently, "idealism" equates mapping (meaning) to the territory itself as if from outside the territory (re: transcendence / transcendental (i.e. dis-embodied viewpoint)) – which is a cognitive illusion, or delusion :sparkle: – whereas "physicalism" proposes using (useable) aspects of – abstractions from – the territory for mapping other aspects of the territory ineluctably from within the territory (re: immanence i.e. embodied viewpoint). IME, modern scientific practices work in spite of the former 'metaphysical bias' and are facilitated by the latter methodology. This is why I think idealism and physicalism are not "equally compatible" with modern science.This post outlines why I don’t believe there’s any specific conflict between idealism and science.
I never claimed or implied "idealism implies anti-realism"; I think the terms are interchangeable because they both, in effect, denote a 'rejection of the nonmind-dependence of mind.' (i.e. both imply a version of dis-embodied cognition). :sparkle:First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place. — Wayfarer
Answer my question, Wayfarer, and then I'll answer yours.So, again, please demonstrate how, as you claim, 'the established facts of evolution and cosmology are "equally compatible" with idealism (i.e. antirealism) as they are with physicalism'.
— 180 Proof
First please demonstrate why idealism implies anti-realism in the first place. — Wayfarer
The topic raisrd by OP is "the nature of esoteric forms of philosophy" and not "secular culture". Stop trying to shift the goalposts. :sweat:secular culture
:up:I think the OP logical, but it doesn't connect to anything. Spinning wheels. — Banno
No doubt.Wayfarer seems to be here to issue dispensations of authority, and confirm his own biases, not to question and subject his beliefs to the rigors of argument. — Janus
Metaphysics without logic too.Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again.
It never works out well. — Banno
Well, since very few philosophers or scientists dogmatically advocate "metaphysical physicalism", you're taking issue wirh a non-issue (or strawman), just barking at shadows in your own little cave, Wayf. :sparkle:physicalism as a metaphysical view. It's physicalism as a metaphysic that I take issue with. — Wayfarer
:clap: :fire: Excellent, well put! Thinking is questioning – being-oneself-in-question – and not merely believing in answers ("esoteric" or otherwise).If philosophy is the desire for wisdom we should be wise enough to know that we are not wise. In the Apology Socrates says that he knows nothing noble and good. (21d)Knowledge of his ignorance is the beginning not the completion of his wisdom. It is, on the one hand, the beginning of self-knowledge and on the other of the self’s knowledge of the world.
Socratic philosophy is zetetic. It is inquiry directed by our lack of knowledge. If Socrates is taken to be, as I think Plato and Xenophon intend, the paradigmatic philosopher, then the fact that he remained ignorant until the end of his life should be kept front and center. — Fooloso4
:chin: Give an example of how "idealism" is "equally compatible" (as e.g. physicalism is) with the established facts of "evolution" or "cosmology". Thanks.I fully accept the established facts of evolution and cosmology. But they do not necessarily entail physicalism. They are equally compatible with an idealist philosophy. — Wayfarer
:up:The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated. — Tzeentch
:100:"Effing the ineffable" is the job of art and poetry, not rigorous philosophical discussion. Poetry may be evocative, but it presents no arguments. That which cannot be tested empirically or justified logically is outside the scope of rational argument. That doesn't mean it has no value ... — Janus
:up:the core of the OP's question. The esoterica of the gaps.... — Tom Storm
:up: :up:I think it ironic how often Socrates' claim of ignorance is ignored. [ ... ] We remain in the cave of opinion. It is not that we do not know anything, but when we do not know what we do not know and believe we do know we are no longer even in the realm of opinion but ignorance. — Fooloso4
:100: :fire:We can know nothing whatsoever about whatever might be "beyond being". The idea is nothing more than the dialectical opposite of 'being'. Fools have always sought to fill the 'domains' of necessary human ignorance with their "knowing". How much misery this has caused humanity is incalculable. — Janus
:smirk: :up:Boundless arrogance?
— tim wood
Israel is the law
— tim wood
:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy. — Tzeentch
:100:Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing. — Tzeentch
This "insight" is partial because existents are only part(icular)s of – ineluctably encompassed by – existence and is, therefore, only "a glance" of an illusion of "the whole". However much a lightning flash momentarily illuminates in the night, the enveloping darkness – the unknown unknown – always remains; an existential reminder that one always already knows that one cannot know ultimately (e.g. Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume-Kant-Wittgenstein ...), which is why philosophy, consisting of questions we do not know (yet) how to answer, always only begins. Btw, Wayf, I don't think it's helpful to further conflate, or confuse, philosophy with mysticism (or with woo :sparkle:) as @Jack Cummins' OP suggests.'Esoteric' is [ ... ] an insight into the whole of existence — Wayfarer
You're damn right, comrade! :mask:↪180 Proof You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag. — Benkei
I'm unaware of any "real reason to live" other than that which one gives oneself by taking caring of – investing time in –anything or anyone other than just oneself.I don’t know why my mind keeps thinking there’s no real reason to live — rossii
IME, as a fellow negative utilitarian, I've found that anticipating & preventing or reducing just one other person's suffering (or nonperson's pain) daily helps to reduce (or "ease") my own suffering daily. Once it's habitual, rossii, disutilitarianism feels like and becomes a win-win practice (i.e. virtue).Maybe it stems from my ethics? - which I found out could be considered negative utilitarianism. It also means I don’t want to cause suffering to others, but I can't seem to ease my own suffering.
... and they may not. Which is it? What are you talking about, Jack? :roll:Metaphorical thinking may ...
Images may ... — Jack Cummins
:100: :up:I'll venture to say that those who so dismiss metaphorical thinking can only be hypocrites, for - as per my initial post - they live and breathe in metaphorical thinking just as much as anyone else does. — javra
"Beware lest a statue slay you.""great" men like FDR and MLK — RogueAI
Mythos as light that casts shadows of Logos on the cave wall ...the nature of esoteric forms of philosophy — Jack Cummins
IMO, more like mythification of ideas, etc.In this way, the ideas of the esoteric may involve more of a demystification rather than clarification of ideas and understanding. — Jack Cummins
