noAxioms!

Two quick questions:

1. Does black hole time travel increase or decrease Time ( I can't remember)?
2. Do black holes contribute to Multiverse theories at all?

their manner of expression may be more holistic than analytic. Which would make it less understandable by left-brain macho males. Hence, the anti-PM animosity expressed in sharp words by the male posters on this thread. :cool: — Gnomon

I get that. I think though, the important point to be made viz PM is that, not only did the domains of physics and psychology abandon LP as being the exclusive means to a given truth, that philosophy itself explored all they could explore with the rational left-brain, as it were. And so, another frontier was left to discover/uncover, which as you rightfully suggested, a more wholistic approach to both philosophy, logic (inductive reasoning/synthetic a priori knowledge, etc.), and psychology was embraced. It's not one over the other, as needed, both are good.

Then the other component intrinsic to the human condition, would then make full use out of those two-halves, so why not use them (aka: emotional intelligence)? At the risk of redundancy, I think Aristotle said the greatest gift we can give to ourselves is to 'know thyself'.

If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. I know that it is difficult for people to accept this about God because on some level they don't want to believe it, and they also want something to be there for them when they have nothing else, so perhaps it is best that these people do still have the idea of God to offer them comfort and keep their spirits up. But I feel like we must also understand that doing this does not at all change the idea of God as He relates to my invisible spirit example. This is important to remember since it could easily be forgotten by reading or listening to anything religious that talks about God in a matter-of-fact manner. — BBQueue

BBQ!

Keep in mind, the Gnostics were very keen on, more or less, that idea of spirituality. But, like Spinoza's teachings, they were excluded from the Christian Orthodoxy, as it were.

Alternatively, in the historic texts (the Christian Bible), we know that Jesus existed. The nature of that existence, in my view, is what the talk is all about ( The Mind of God). Nevertheless, since we don't even know the true nature of our own existence, what would be the existential implications/distinctions?

but about learning to be aware of feelings BEFORE we express them, rather than after, and evaluating the effectiveness of options for expression in terms of the timing, language, situation, target, etc of our interaction — Possibility

Yep, no exceptions taken Possibility!

When we do that, we offer an opportunity for our partner to communicate their feelings (this time with the aim to be understood), rather than just emote. — Possibility

Yep, no exceptions taken. However, 'just emoting' is okay too, as long as it's understood that way. In other words, wanting to just vent emotions can be therapeutic (I've learned that being a musician).

Few of us are as self-aware as we assume we are - neither are we as rational as we assume. Often we need to be told we’re acting cranky or irritable or flat by someone who is accustomed to how we normally behave, so we learn to recognise when something’s off-balance before it gets out of hand. I think it’s part of how we look after each other. — Possibility

Sure, and thanks for clarifying that as well as the entire argument here. To underscore this point though, it almost begs the question of compatibility. We know in a long term relationship couples can grow apart, together, or somewhere in between, and still make it work. While other's of course, choose not to make it work. My question is, how do you distinguish between what is a normal amount of deciphering and/or engaging in an extraordinary/extraneous amount of same?

I ask this for obvious reasons, because spending an inordinate amount of intellectual energy being a person's therapist is not a good thing.

By the way, what's been your take on the Venus/Mar's thing? Do we all just want the same thing ( we just manifest them differently) or do we want different things? Perhaps in your earlier replies, you've suggested a combination or hybrid of sorts, based upon each individual's (their subjective truth) wants and needs... .

I suppose then, in any case, by being aware of who you are or embracing the true-to-thyself (as Aristotle suggested/'know thyself') ethos, the responsibility needs to be shared by both parties.

Yes. We all adapt our "true selves" to our social situation by wearing suitable personas. Unfortunately, homosexuals, being persona non grata in most traditional societies, probably begin to lose their essential sense of self while hiding behind a more acceptable mask. Unfortunately, some "flaming gays" are so driven by their biological "Venusian" essence that the mask doesn't fool anybody. So, in order to survive, I suspect that they "act the fool" in order to appear as inoffensive as possible. :cool: — Gnomon

Gnomon!

I agree to the extend that no matter what you are (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) that one should always try to be themselves and strive to be the most authentic to other's. IMO, I think that's the real takeaway there. Jung, Maslow, Freud and others were instrumental in bringing that phenomena to light.

But, I don't understand the alternative vaguely-defined non-rational methods that seem to have replaced the analytical methods of Logical Positivism. — Gnomon

Gnomon, if you study LP (in a sort of succinct paraphrase here) they only believed that truth should be investigated and validated through a priori or a posteriori methodology. Subjective truth's, phenomenological truth's, and metaphysical and/or cosmological inquiry was not considered as a valid form of reasoning. Hence, the synthetic a priori: 'all events must have a cause' would be denied by the LP as a methodology in discovering any type of truth. Accordingly, Kant argued that synthetic a priori knowledge is, on the other hand, possible.

That is why many in both modern and post modern physical science and cognitive science, have written about the gaps left from LP. For instance, most all physical theories in physics start with synthetic propositions that can be tested. And most cognitive experiments/theories in psychology involve phenomena beyond that rational from LP.

So, I'm wondering if the philosophical "reasoning" styles of Postmodernists, have more in common with Venus than with Mars. — Gnomon

I'm not sure I'm following you there. Can you elucidate a bit more on that? In other words, are you implying (as a heterosexual or gay person as you suggested) that both brain hemispheres should be discouraged from use, or somehow not a virtuous ideal?

In a word, yes. Examples include violations of LEM/bivalence (principle of Vagueness/ambiguity), consciousness (consciousness, sub-consciousness and unconsciousness), Being and Becoming, self referential statements (unresolved paradox/incompleteness), etc..

Living this life is indeed a mystery and somewhat incomplete and irrational and/or transcends the axioms of formal logic :snicker:

(Think of it another way; the metaphorical cosmic computer operates from yes/no and either/or (binary) systems, but living life isn't like that. If it were, we wouldn't survive meltdowns- well some people don't survive them anyway!)

in this thread I'm trying understand the appeal of the blatantly antiscience, and vaguely anti-reason,

Gnomon, I believe part of Postmodernism movement/Existentialism (19-20th Century) and Phenomenology (20th) were developed in response to the limitations or gaps left from Logical Positivism. A few bullet points of contrast:

Logical Positivism: Does not recognize Kantian synthetic a priori knowledge.

Existentialism: People actually make decisions based on subjective meaning rather than pure rationality.

Phenomenology is perhaps a little more interesting, as taken from Wiki:

1.Phenomenologists reject the concept of objective research. They prefer grouping assumptions through a process called phenomenological epoché.
2.They believe that analyzing daily human behavior can provide one with a greater understanding of nature.
3.They assert that persons should be explored. This is because persons can be understood through the unique ways they reflect the society they live in.
4.Phenomenologists prefer to gather "capta", or conscious experience, rather than traditional data.
5.They consider phenomenology to be oriented toward discovery, and therefore they research using methods that are far less restrictive than in other sciences.[4]

Hope that helps some.

:up: :up:

What is some good definitions of abstraction? Some people seem to use the term to refer to something that is ambiguous or not defined. An example of what people sometimes say is: love is such an abstract concept. — musicpianoaccordion

Consider the differences between the phenomena of love and mathematical truth's.

A mathematical truth that describes how gravity works, or how a structural beam is sized correctly, is indeed an abstract entity that describes something. That something may or may not be relative to an object (metaphysical).

Love, on the other hand, would be considered a metaphysical abstract not necessarily because it's ambiguous or not well defined, but because it's a phenomenon that can't really be properly articulated in a concrete way. It's existence is mysterious, sometimes ineffable, subjective/objective, and at times illogical.

It seems one feature of abstract existence that appears to be the same relates to the subject-object/metaphyscial relationship.

When I mention differences in language and conceptual structures, what I’m referring to is this sense that we are expressing feelings, but they’re not being interpreted as wants and needs. Rather they’re taken as personal attacks: criticism or entrapment or anger or bitterness. And when those wants and needs expressed but not heard fail to be validated, are turned against us or dismissed as overreaction, etc, then we eventually give up on expressing those feelings. And then the relationship breaks down, and the partner is left wondering why these feelings were never ‘communicated’. This occurs as much (sometimes more) with men as it does with women. — Possibility

Possibility!

Point well taken. There's a complexity relative to the human condition for sure. As you suggest, there's also the receiver who receives the information communicated. But my point is, if feelings are not communicated to begin with (say due to the stereotype's/rubrics of stoicism that seems to be popular) then how does one assume agreement is reached? You have to be able to communicate effectively, and even sometimes using simple English like 'I feel sad because' or,' I feel happy because'. Otherwise, people will act-out in deleterious ways... .

Also, to your other point, no matter how hard you try to qualify and soften your delivery, if the person still gets defensive (taken as personal attacks), who's at fault there? And so, this notion of keeping a stiff upper lip that seems so prevalent might work in war, in economic or political chaos, and so forth but, in a relationship it's doubtful it has the same effectiveness/benefits.

So what I'm saying there is the many forms of stoicism seems to be the root cause (and interpreted incorrectly by the masses) of this failure to listen because 'I don't want to go there', and 'neither should you go there' seems to be alive and [un]well! Accordingly, I can't imagine how two introvert's sustain a relationship unless they are clones, which is a whole different discussion in itself (what does compatibility really mean).

We rarely express feelings as a conscious, targeted communication, so it’s never in a form designed to be understood by a specific audience. It’s in our own ‘native’ emotional language. Some tend to ‘act out’ their feelings, while others dress them up in ‘respectable’ language. Part of developing a relationship is learning to recognise our partner’s unconscious ‘native’ language, so that when they express those feelings of wants and needs, we learn to pay attention, and at least make an effort to understand. Sometimes it helps to just ask for a ‘translation’, so to speak. It’s not so much about our feelings being automatically understood, but about the communication process itself: awareness, connection and eventually collaboration. It takes two. — Possibility

I'm a little concerned about that. Actually, it's just a bit alarming (if I'm interpreting it correctly), that the jist of your argument relates to the male/female playing a metaphorical Let's Make a Deal word game, where there is this sort of interminable question-answer game of cat and mouse every time someone speaks. You seem to be suggesting that partners somehow aught to waste an extraordinary amount of intellectual energy to play this game of deciphering what the other person means (what's behind door number one). Am I wrong here?

This 'learning to recognize the other partner's unconscious' is disturbing. It comes across as an endorsement of taking no personal responsibility for one's own self-awareness, but rather shifts that onto their partner. I hope I'm wrong here, so maybe I'm not interpreting what you're saying correctly?

(In the context of a geopolitical or social debate, it seems more appropriate to advocate your position or theory, but not in the context of loved one's/interpersonal relationships... .)

The Stoics, though, didn't teach the repression of emotions. Instead, stoic practice involved (and still involves) methods by which to lessen the influence and effect of negative emotions (such as fear and anger) and promote tranquility. — Ciceronianus the White

Thanks for your contribution CW!

Exception taken as noted. While I agree that part of what was also taught, was that one cannot fret over things they cannot control, and thus 'repression' of emotions per say wasn't the intention, I also submit it became an unintended consequence nonetheless. In the real world of so-called pragmatics (or maybe ignorance), many people interpreted it incorrectly or translated it to mean the virtues of keeping a stiff upper lip.

And so, I'm not sure what's being taught in public schools, but the old-school stereotypical male who is always supposed to keep a stiff upper lip in order to provide for a gender specific Logos, should at the very least, be made aware of those differences. We have to halves of our brain to make whole, if you know what I mean vern.

Otherwise, I think we run the danger of what Jung posited relative to an unhealthy Persona.

Btw, I have no idea what your point is, or what you're arguing. Good job of making nonsense! — tim wood

Hiding behind ad hominem only serves to substantiate my point to you, which is, you don't even understand the nature of your own existence, so how can you make any logical distinctions between whether something exists or not(?).

Put a quarter in and try again! LOL

Consider the relationships between Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Postmodernism (1966-present.)

What I enjoy reading about is the distinctions between the logic of language and the meaning of words. I think it was Derrida who wanted to deconstruct meaning by making a point about the meanings of words used in a sentence; he called it free play ( see below example). Similarly, I think Nietzsche argued that the very basics of knowledge and language is [not necessarily] not a reliable system of communication. Here are some examples about ambiguity in the deconstruction of a sentence:

Time (noun) flies (verb) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Time passes quickly.

Time (verb) flies (object) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Get out your stopwatch and time the speed of flies as you would time an arrow's flight.

Time flies (noun) like (verb) an arrow (object) = Time flies are fond of arrows (or at least of one particular arrow).

Probably not the best example, but the point is that rational forms of truth are limited to things like the logic of words and language. But truth and fact well up into our lives exceeding such verbal formulation. And Phenomenology, is one example of that (contemporary philosophy).

You don't have to be a fundy extremist to accept that objective truth exists. — tilda-psychist

Agreed! I was just supporting your view about the irony.

Are you saying objective truth doesn't exist? — tilda-psychist

Absolutely not. There exists both subjective and objective truth. We can't escape it. In principle, if we had a material world with no subjective observers, then one could argue that objectivity is the only thing that exists. But then that would present a paradox. Similarly, you could be like the Idealist and argue that only the mind exists, and therefore all is subjective.

In my opinion, the important takeaway from post-modernism is the value of being willing to make those distinctions between subjectivity and objectivity, both metaphysically and ontologically. Subjective truth's and objective truth's are also interesting in that they span the concepts found in logic and epistemology as well.

Sure. That's a Kierkegaardian view. And your point ?

The funny thing is religionists are very often the ones who ones who reject post-modernism. — tilda-psychist

Indeed. Particularly the Fundy extremist.

I voted Logic. To be succinct, philosophy itself lives in the logic of words, and language.

There is a large amount of male-female difference that comes down to historical roles and how this has affected experience, and with that language and conceptual structures. Our social and cultural reality has evolved differently, and so we tend to experience the world differently - but none of this is inherent or fixed. — Possibility

Possibility!

Generally take no exceptions to your thoughts and concerns. The aforementioned quote speaks to the concern of rubrics, as well as the argument about the downside to the perpetuation of stoicism (I've met women who are very stoic).

I think the means-to-the-end there would be the expression of feelings/differences . And that leads to the theory that we all want to feel good about our relationships. So if we want to feel good about our relationships, we have to express those feelings of wants and needs, and so on, that may uncover those differences you mention, I suppose.

One thing that I think is quite pervasive in society, is this notion of power. My experience has revealed that there are both women man-haters, as well as men woman-haters out there. The reasons for that are numerous (such as childhood experiences, dysfunctional environments, no parental guidance, etc.) but generally fall back into the category of human pathologies. It's a bit perplexing as to why men and women need to be 'controlling' and/or who are intrinsically adversarial toward their partner's for whom they have supposed love.

I don't know if Jung was that dogmatic about his pigeonholes of human nature and psychological types. But he was an Analytical psychologist, and categorizing is what they do. It's a way of simplifying something that is too vast and vaguely understood to be dealt with as an undifferentiated whole. He was basically inventing his own brand of scientific/empirical Psychology, as opposed to the former philosophical/literary theories of mind, from scratch. — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Indeed, I'm not married to Jung, but like most so-called axioms or theories we study, there are usually at least more than a few good takeaway's from them. He theorized about a few 'archetypes' concerning men and women, one of which he called The Persona:

The persona is how we present ourselves to the world. The word "persona" is derived from a Latin word that literally means "mask." It is not a literal mask, however.

The persona represents all of the different social masks that we wear among various groups and situations. It acts to shield the ego from negative images. According to Jung, the persona may appear in dreams and take different forms.

Over the course of development, children learn that they must behave in certain ways in order to fit in with society's expectations and norms. The persona develops as a social mask to contain all of the primitive urges, impulses, and emotions that are not considered socially acceptable.

The persona archetype allows people to adapt to the world around them and fit in with the society in which they live. However, becoming too closely identified with this archetype can lead people to lose sight of their true selves.

Gnomon, what was interesting there, was this notion of loosing one's true self, this one very important concept or takeaway to be considered in both the discovery and uncovery of Being ( A Maslonian phrase which I've always liked).

And the implication, in some liberated circles, is that Gender is merely a biological suggestion, and that Sexual Identity is a personal lifestyle choice. — Gnomon

Yes. Me personally, I'm happily heterosexual and love women. Which, is another reason why I raised this question of Venus v. Mars. The dichotomy is not only the differences between the sexes themselves (masculinity and femininity) but the stereotypes that have presented themselves throughout the ages.

Take stoicism for example. We know that basically during the fall of Roman empire it was used a philosophy of coping; physiological coping skills, in order to get through harsh/tough/difficult times. Thus we have seen this perpetuated in some instances, and taken to extremes to where it becomes a repression of healthy emotions and expression of same. And so in the face of men v. women, simple communication about one's feelings go a long way in maintaining a healthy relationship. Easier said than done I know... .

Yet, ultimately, only in a long-term long-suffering marriage, can wives & husband learn to read the opaque mind of their significant Other. Short-term "partners" should be content to enjoy the sex, and don't worry about "what she/he's thinking". :smile: — Gnomon

In principle, I suppose it's a shame that going through long-term suffering sharpens the iron as they say, as apposed to already going into the relationship with the knowledge and tools of self-awareness.

You use words like "metaphysics," existence," "wonder," "God," "consicous" and "consciousness" all in peculiar and almost incoherent ways. Stop playing the fool and provide some understanding. Last call. — tim wood

Hey Tim!

I hope you had a good weekend. Now back to the boxing match:.

Mmmmm, sounds like to me that you are throwing in the towel. You are on a philosophy site, and you are claiming that there is no God. Metaphysics, synthetic a priori knowledge, the nature of existence, metaphysical consciousness/the sense of wonderment/the Will, those are the many conceptual tools we are using for round one in the match. And in our match, I can't tell you how to train, which routine is best for you, which strategy to use, the best gloves to wear, how many sit-ups to do, ad nauseum.

So once again, using ad hominin to hide behind your lack of training only substantiates my arguments to you.

Oh well, maybe try to train harder next time :chin: .

Unless I hear some skillful attack, it's two atheist's down in round one (you and jorndoe) LOL

Imponderable. Unanswerable. — tim wood

Are you saying that your own existence isn't ponderable or unanswerable?

Surely this couldn't be the case could it? It makes me wonder, no pun intended, if you can't answer basic questions about your own consious existence, in this case your will to live, how could you possibly answer questions or make any statements whatsoever about Jesus' existence?

Jesus, in historical texts who had a conscious,
did exist , didn't he? And you, you have a conscious and exist too, right?

Well if I haven't knocked you senseless yet, it follows that since you can't answer the basic metaphysical questions about your own will/conscious existence, then how you could you possibly answer questions about someone else's existence like Jesus?

So the knockout punch, if you will, appears to be you can't make any statements about God,/Jesus' existence. Using your logic, how is that possible?

Think about that a little bit more before we proceed, since this is critical to Metaphysics, existence, and your sense of Logic.

Please share your thoughts. But right now, I can't escape the conclusion I'm coming to in round one, which is to say that you can't make any declarations about either yourself or God. LOL

Let me repeat it did I knock you senseless already?

Here it is: Are you asking what causes me to wonder, or what causes wonder?

My answer: both.

Rope a dope, rope a dope, LOL

Are you asking what causes me to wonder, or what causes wonder? — tim wood

Good, we're making progress. Both.

I think I'll rope-a-dope a little bit while you're pondering that important question relative to existence. That way you can think a little more clearly . LOL

English and coherence, please. — tim wood

Does this mean you're throwing in the towel already?

Okay let me try a couple of softer punches. Let's start with the very simple. What causes you to wonder in your consciousness? Do you know?

For the rest, it's appearing that you do not know how, or are not interested, in a real discussion. Recall I said I'm not playing. Start making sense, or quit. — tim wood

Complaining to the referee on process I see lol.

Let me be a little clearer, metaphysical will is that which precludes you from committing suicide. But in this match, it won't preclude you from losing this round.

you aver Jesus was (a) god. then evidence. And hearsay rules apply; hearsay is not evidence. — tim wood

I believe Jesus was recorded in history much like George Washington Albert Einstein et.al.

So far I've landed more punches than you in round one; is that all you got? I'm like Muhammad Ali, I like taunting LOL

The analytic a priori judgment is always necessarily and universally so and cannot be otherwise - as a matter of the logic of the thing.. — tim wood

I see. So is this some sort of metaphysical innate sense of wonderment about causation?

use the word cause as a kind of black box. But that won't do. You shall have to open the box and start to try to understand the word - and it's not a simple word. — tim wood

What would you call the metaphysical phenomena it causes you to live or die?

Let's nail this down. 3017amen agrees that God does not exist in any material way or sense, but rather that the existence of g/God(s) is as ideas and is a function of and depends entirely and solely on the minds that think them. Can we be clear on this? — tim wood

On the contrary Jesus was a man.

And you keep throwing the word "metaphysical." The more thrown, the more I'm persuaded you don't know what it means. I have a definition - not mine - that metaphysics is the study of the presuppositions and absolute presuppositions made by different people at different times. Is that yours also? — tim wood

The nature of your existence.

I'm still waiting for your answers in round one. Surely you're not thinking about throwing in the towel already or are you? We've got lots more ground to cover and many more domains to explore. LOL

Oh and by the way, asking help from your corner will not help you much now! Doesn't seem like you've done the requisite training. Lol

shortest and quickest way to understand it is to read Kant. And if you really have no idea, then you really have to read it. — tim wood

I'm not following that, have you studied the synthetic a priori knowledge?

Tell us, please, how metaphysical will as a cause, works as a cause. Throw in your understanding of metaphysics too, if you will, because I can't make sense of that, either. — tim wood

Metaphysical will causes you to make the choices, no? Please share your thoughts.

In opposing this, I claim God does not exist because of a) lack of evidence , and b) in the nature of most folks' understandings of God are supernatural aspects that cannot exist. — tim wood

That's a bit perplexing. Let me see if I understand that. It appears you're looking for some sort of physical or material evidence, yet there are immaterial and metaphysical phenomena associated with your own existence. What's the difference?

In the meantime please share your thoughts on synthetic a priori knowledge. I'll keep reminding you as we go along. I consider this round one of our boxing match.

which is it? Agreement or disagreement?

A — tim wood

God means different things to different people, including myself. Right now I'm focusing on the metaphysical aspects relative to consciousness viz Jesus.

So whenever you good time to study the synthetic a priori, please share your thoughts. After that, we'll move on to the other domains of philosophy that I mentioned to jorndoe .

In summary I'm thinking about 8 or 9 rounds of boxing aught to do it lol. How you respond to this first round will be interesting...

God as regulative idea — tim wood

I'm not following that. Can you explain a regulative idea within one's consciousness?

Until you make clear what a cause is and an event is, no answer. — tim wood

Sure. Let's explore that.

1. In consciousness what kind of knowledge causes such a judgment about causation? In other words, why/how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

joined the thread because there seemed to be a bunch of atheists bashing a theist. — Punshhh

Ironically enough, it's perfectly fine Punshhh, thanks. What angry atheists (and there are definitely some on TPF) don't realize is that their anger only serves to substantiate mine and other's truth.

But this is nothing new under the sun. In studying the human condition, it's to be expected. And in recent history certainly, Einstein suggested it ( specifically the begrudged atheists) , as well as, of course, other historical texts :halo:

There's nothing wrong with spirited debate. But I notice on this site those atheists who are angry will hide behind personal attacks and/or ad hominem. Just an observation.

This discussion is just full of surprises. :razz:


Stay tuned, it will only get better. One down, one more to go LOL

Bonus question: The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?

That is a presupposition of Kant's thinking. If you wish to affirm it otherwise, then I ask you what a cause is. Do you wan to go there? What is a cause? — tim wood

Metaphysical Will.

And sure. I yield God as an idea, and in some ways a good and useful one. Is that the ambit of your argument, that you possess an idea of God? — tim wood

God is as real as your conscious existence.

Really? It exists in my consciousness. Are you saying that I don't have a consciousness?