The YouTube video:
Anahata (Heart Centre) Experience Sarvapriyananda #shorts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3_lPPYbnw&list=LL&index=3 — Art48

i suspect you aren’t too crazy about Foucault, Rorty, social constructionism, Derrida, Deleuze, Nietzsche or Husserl either when it comes to ethics. — Joshs

Basic to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle is the desire for and pursuit of the good. This must be understood at the most ordinary level, not as a theory but simply as what we want both for ourselves and those we care about. It is not only basic to their philosophy but basic to their understanding of who we are as human beings.

Phronesis, often translated as practical wisdom, is not simply a matter of reasoning toward
achieving ends, but of deliberation about good ends.

For Heidegger consideration of the good is replaced with the call of conscience. The call of conscience is not about what is good or bad, it is the call for authenticity. Its primary concern is not oneself or others but Being. He sees Plato's elevation of the Good above being, that is, as the source of both being and being known, as a move away from, a forgetting of Being.

In more general terms, how severing reason from the good is nihilism can be seen in the ideal of objectivity and the sequestering of "value judgments". Political philosophy, for example, is shunned in favor of political science. The question of how best to live has no place in a science of politics whose concerns are structural and deal with power differentials. — Fooloso4

As specifically relates to H, "resolute" (i.e. subjectivist aka "ownmost") "being-towards-death" makes for "authentic Dasein", reminiscent of soldiering (kamikazi-like), that resonates with a Kierkegaardian "knight of faith's" fervor rationalized by the theodicy of death at the drum-beating heart of H's SuZ. "Authenticity" – purportedly the highest subjectivist (and historicist) goal – is the hymn of this Absolute (which for H's Dasein is (my) "death") invoked as en-chanting (i.e. "jargoning" Adorno suggests) in lieu of, or over above, public reasoning. — 180 Proof

Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by ‘facts,’ i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. — Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), Notes 1936-1938

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — The Gay Science, 173

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS — on a sign in the Agora

Still spending more time on style over substance but what do I know. — invicta

Eat an apple; you know what an apple tastes like. — EnPassant

... many ways of knowing

and many facets of reality to know.

Wasn't Spinoza an idealist in all but name? — sime

As for Epicurus, as an empirically minded philosopher, didn't he stress the epistemic primacy, if not ontological primacy of sense-data?

I'm also not seeing any real points of disagreement between the ontological arguments of Berkleley and Epircurus.

Metaphysics by definition is prior to physics. — HarryHarry

an orderly, accountable process of de-centralizing 'scarcity-producing, shareholder dominance hierarchies' into (federated) regimes of stakeholder control (and/or ownership) of industry, finance & governance wherein local-regional-hemispheric ecosystems are also stakeholders (i.e. legal wards of local, regional or hemispheric (non-commercial) organizations) along with workers and affected communities.

The theistic g/G-type is shown to be empty, therefore its g/G-tokens are fictions.

Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo. — universeness

A good definition of libertarian free will?

It depends on what you want to count as philosophy, I guess. — plaque flag

1 The world is everything that is the case.

1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.

1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.

1.2 The world divides into facts.

1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same. — Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 1921 (completed 1918)

There is a direct connection between his concept of time and his acceptance of Nazism and its atrocities. He called it "hearkening to Being". — Fooloso4

Being and Time should be read by all serious students of philosophy and is worthy of being course subject matter. — Arne

I've been grateful to Heidegger, nonetheless, since my earliest philosophical studies in the late '70s for his monumental oeuvre as a/the paragon of how NOT to philosophize - or think-live philosophically (as Arendt points out) - as manifest by the generations of heideggerian obscurant sophists (i.e. p0m0s e.g. Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Rorty et al) who've come and gone in and out of academic & litcrit fashion since the 1950s ... — 180 Proof

There are different kinds of knowing. — EnPassant

What motivates you to 'reason' something, surely you must have been 'inspired' to? — universeness

Why ask "why"? — Gnomon

The common sense view also says the Earth is flat and stationary. — Art48

So, if I make a statement like 'I give a high credence level to the basic premise of string theory,' PARTLY because I am attracted to it's aesthetic (or it's beauty). Would I, in your opinion, be as guilty of being 'romantic' about science, in the exact same way that I might accuse a theist of being irrational/romantic/unreasonable, about the credence level they assign to the existence of their god? — universeness

Do you agree that some equations are more aesthetically pleasing than others?

If an aesthetic, inspires a person to learn more about a topic, is that an 'aesthetic reasoning,' that we should always guard against?

Hitchens saw value in the word numinous as well, whereas I have always associated that word with other rather woo woo words like transcendent.

Theists often claim a calling which is 'higher than any other calling,' including any call to human science, and I think we should NEVER forget to totally challenge that arrogant, unjustified claim.

So I don't "know" what we know, but it doesn't matter. — EnPassant

Do you think reason and faith have nothing between them other than hostility? — universeness

Is there any value in faith being the equivalent of a measured credence level, you assign to a particular proposal?

you are stating current dogma — lorenzo sleakes

↪180 Proof
Sir I appreciate your understanding, your education and admire your patience — Nickolasgaspar

I'm a bit surprised to see Hume on the list. — plaque flag