Humans are such emotional creatures, so attached to our own experiences and projecting these upon others that I also wonder how it is we can also collaborate so well and care for each other. — Tom Storm

You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other.

I've come to realize is right there in what I feel and see around me — Janus

I think that is the source of the transcendental realm. It's why so much of my philosophy is based on introspection, for which I have been criticized.

letting you know that whatever your presuppositions — Tom Storm

I agree. For me, that recognition is a function of my intellectual self-awareness.

I don't know what spiritual practice is — Tom Storm

I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness.

people are inclined to act according to supposedly rational rules and laws? — ToothyMaw

I don't think that is true at all, and it's especially not true in matters of morals. The essence of morality is human values, not truths.

Since you said you agree that the world is mind-dependent, what do you think that entails or implies? — Bob Ross

I think it's a metaphysical statement - a way of thinking about things or a point of view - not a fact. I like the way @Janus said it in a different discussion - It's a catalyst for new ideas and feelings. In a sense I think it's a meta-metaphysical statement. It demonstrates that our fundamental understanding of reality is human, I guess you would say subjective. That tells us not to be too arrogant about how universal our beliefs are.

Yes, all I meant by "inspiring" was something like "being a catalyst for new ideas and feelings — Janus

Yes - I think that's a good way of saying it.

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. — Judaka

To me, the essence of racism is personal. I imagine what it would be like to go out every day being bombarded by the dislike, suspicion, and contempt of people I meet and knowing it would be the same tomorrow and the day after. I don't know if I would survive that.

As for the political and economic aspects of racism, I've come to believe that @BC is right - that's primarily an issue of class. Please correct me if I misstated your position, BC.

Do you think that the entire world is mind-dependent, or just certain of its features? — charles ferraro

I like @Tom Storm's answer.

I would like to share my formulation of an argument for the world being mind-dependent and qualitative; and see everyone's thoughts thereof. — Bob Ross

I don't disagree with the result of your arguments - the world is mind-dependent. I'm not so sure of some of the arguments themselves. That being said, what would a mind-independent world be? Is that just objective reality? Is it what was there before there were minds? Did nothing exist before there were minds? I don't think that is a ridiculous idea to propose.

He argues that philosophy is to be a practical exercise, a spiritual exercise. He writes in Philosophy as a Way of Life "Ancient philosophy proposed to mankind an art of living. By contrast, modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists." — Dermot Griffin

In line with that argument - My (personal) answer to the question of what philosophies purpose - Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice.

I disagree that "anything experienced has already been conceptualized" is necessarily true.
— T Clark

Absolutely. That proposition is merely a theoretical tenet, hence shouldn’t be considered as necessarily true. It is still worthy of being considered nonetheless logically consistent and sufficiently explanatory. — Mww

Are they actual independent existents, or can the fact that we all see the same things be explained by our minds being connected with one another in some way we cannot be conscious of, or with some universal mind that "thinks" the objects we encounter every day? Or is there some other explanation we cannot even (at present or ever?) imagine? — Janus

I think the answer is simpler. We all have human minds with similar capacities. Those minds are stuffed full of knowledge about the world and how it works, much of which is taught to us by other people. That's how our minds are connected with each other.

Not your fault. — BC

You are forgiven.

Do you mean it is "useful" in the sense of being inspiring? — Janus

I'm thinking more about my response. I didn't really answer your question. I didn't like your use of "inspiring" but as I think more I think there is truth in it, although I'm not sure "inspiring" is the right word. I think materialism greases the skids for scientific thinking. It makes it easier to think about scientific questions, at least as those questions are generally formulated in today's science.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly. — BC

My position is simple and I think I've explained it clearly. Saying I have failed to think clearly is hard to respond to unless you provide justification for the claim. In the absence of that justification, I'll just say nunh unh.

explaining the problem in this most basic, inaccurate way, as a massive generalisation, that's pointless. — Judaka

I think the idea of racism leads to an inaccurate understanding of racial relationships in society. I that that view is also an over-generalization and is misleading.

Clark's outlining doesn't make any sense, and I don't think I can be bothered to have a serious debate on it. — Judaka

Perhaps it would be best if I don't respond to your posts in the future.

But is it possible to say anything intelligible about that experience? — Janus

Sure, but what gets said then is conceptualized. For me, that's the essence of the unspeakable - whatever it is, when you speak about it it becomes something different. It's important to recognize that, although I can process, conceptualize what I've experienced, it is not necessary that I do so.

I can get what you are saying, but I don't doubt that an idealist can do science just as well as a materialist, or that a materialist can do mathematics as effectively as an idealist. — Janus

I don't disagree, but I do think a materialist approach leads more naturally to a scientific understanding. It's also important to recognize that you can use more than one approach depending on the specific subject. You can see things materialistically when you're doing science and idealistically when you're doing math. We are not tied to a single metaphysical foundation.

So, do you think abstract reasoning is possible without language? — Janus

They seem very much of a piece don't they? That the evolution of language and reason would go hand in hand, would it not? That would not be a controversial claim would it? — Quixodian

I do think that language is necessary for abstract reasoning.

I think this aspect of Kant's philosophy - his treatment of the noumenal - is a deficiency. I'm still working out why, but the outlines are becoming clearer. — Quixodian

I think any philosophy that doesn't address the unspeakable, unknowable foundation of reality is missing something. I like the way Kant has formulated it, made it such as prominent part of his philosophy, but there parts of his take I don't agree with or don't understand enough to disagree with.

Kant named the noumena such because all we can do is think about it. It is never in our direct experience. — Gregory

Kant can be a wordy, inconsistent, confusing philosopher. The same is true of Lao Tzu. They both use the same words to mean different things at different times to suit their purposes. I don't know Kant well enough to know whether he and I mean the same thing when we talk about "experience." I'm not even sure Lao Tzu and other Taoist philosophers would agree with me.

Do you mean it is "useful" in the sense of being inspiring? — Janus

Example - I think a materialist approach to reality is useful for doing science. Conceptually breaking the world down into pieces - analysis - allows us to grasp the pieces and manipulate them for our purposes. That doesn't mean materialism is true.

Another - An idealist approach is useful when doing mathematics. Seeing mathematical entities as real allows us to work with them without contradiction. I've read that mathematicians tend to be idealists. Again, that doesn't mean idealism is true.

I’m no Taoist, that's for sure, but in western philosophy generally and Enlightenment German idealism in particular, anything experienced has already been conceptualized, and therefore can be spoken about. — Mww

I disagree that "anything experienced has already been conceptualized" is necessarily true. I think it is possible to experience reality - noumena or the Tao - directly without conceptualization.

A mental image of a chiliagon cannot be clearly distinguished from a mental image of a 1,002-sided figure, or even from a mental image of a circle.The concept of a chiliagon is clearly distinct from the concept of a 1,002-sided figure or the concept of a circle. Likewise I cannot clearly differentiate a mental image of a crowd of one million people from a mental image of a crowd of 900,000 people. But reason easily grasps the difference between the concept of a crowd of one million people and the concept of a crowd of 900,000 people (from Ed Feser). — Quixodian

Maybe I've misunderstood. Are you saying that the difficulty in picturing a chiiliagon is the same as that for picturing noumena? That's certainly not how I understand it.

Bullshit on, dude. See what you want to see, no worries. — unenlightened

Graceless.

how do you communicate what others call "racism"? — LuckyR

That's what I'm doing with my posts here in this discussion.

Here’s a good example from Descartes. If I tell you a chilliagon is a thousand-sided polygon you will be able to grasp the idea easily. But you could neither create an accurate mental image of one, nor visually identify an example of one, at least without counting the sides. The idea of a chilliagon is thus something which can be grasped by reason - an ‘object of mind’ - even though as a phenomenal object they may be extremely difficult to discern. — Quixodian

Is this intended to be an example of "something we can’t know" in the same sense noumena are? I don't think it's a good one. I can create a more or less accurate mental image of a chilliagon. Wait a second, I'll do it now... My mental images are never better than more or less accurate, even for something quotidian like a horse or my older brother's left thumb. Sorry, I've felt a need to use "quotidian" in a post for several days. In the same way, I could identify an example if you showed me one. What disqualifies my identification just because I have to count the sides to determine if it is a chilliagon or a chilliagon + 1?

Or have I misunderstood your point?

In short because we are not equipped with the means for the experience of them. — Mww

Good post. I think, although I'm not sure, that Lao Tzu would say you can experience the Tao. You just can't conceptualize it or speak about it. .

A fine principle that equates truth and falsehood — unenlightened

I don't see it that way. I think it just means that truth is a secondary principle. Truth is a servant of utility. Truth, or falsity, must be useful to be meaningful. Who cares if the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain unless they are a Spanish farmer, a climate scientist, or a linguist in Edwardian England.

What's your alternative label? — LuckyR

I don't see any need for a label.

Okay, what's "the problem"? — Judaka

As I wrote previously - white people don't like, trust, or respect black people.

I'm aware of your capability to interpret using race as your lens, my concern is whether you're able to know when not to do that. — Judaka

This whole thread is about looking at society using race as a lens.

Why is it naive? — Judaka

You wrote:

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

You seem to be saying that considering race a cause of social inequality in the US is wrong. First, I think that ignores history. Second, as I noted, this whole discussion is about the effects of race on American society.

I can relate to that. But if multiplicity depends on naming and cannot exist without it, then it would certainly seem to follow that, unless animals practice naming, there can be no multiplicity for them—then should we pity the poor impoverished fuckers? — Janus

Taoism is metaphysics, not science. It's not true, it's a useful way of looking at things.

Does it follow that there is no multiplicity (difference) for animals? — Janus

Good question. The answer is...

If I recall correctly, we hadn't had any disagreements in the thread we talked about morality, but perhaps I said something I disagreed with that you left unaddressed. I won't speculate as to the nature of this apparent difference. — Judaka

When you and I have discussed morality previously, I always felt that our understandings missed each other. It's not that we disagreed, just that we talked different language.

the rules for your applying it are non-existent — Judaka

I don't know what this means. I described what I mean and provided examples. If you're saying that you don't recognize or accept the conditions I've described, I don't know what else to say. It seems obvious to me. And I'm already walking on thin ice. For me to claim to be some sort of expert on the black experience in America would be more than arrogant, laughable, and disrespectful. It would be... deluded, self-aggrandizing, contemptable.

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

This seems naive to me. Worse than that... willfully blind and self-serving.

Your understanding is far too simplistic, why is it so lacking in nuance? — Judaka

The source of the problem and possible solutions might be complex, but the problem itself is simple as pie.

So, it seems noumena belong to an empty set, which cannot even be named or categorized? — Janus

At the risk of over-simplifying and misrepresenting, noumena is what is there before there is anything - before there is anyone to conceptualize. Lao Tzu calls it naming. Naming brings the multiplicity of the world into being out of the unnamable Tao.

Good posts. I have come to think your emphasis on class rather than just race is the proper approach for dealing with our racial issues. I can't think of any other way that can provide relief without making black people and poor white people enemies.

I just gave you the background you asked for. — unenlightened

Have y'all been living under a stone not to have noticed the unreasonable effectiveness of bullshit? — unenlightened

Whatever your thoughts on Huna, @HarryHarry's post was substantive.

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure why you got that from our previous discussions, I told you morality is heavily rooted in emotion and personal feelings, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair, justified/unjustified. — Judaka

Yes, I don't think I expressed myself well. I didn't mean to disparage your way of seeing things. It's just that you and I talk about moral issues in different terms in ways that can seem contradictory.

I'm just pointing out the issue with interpreting racism, and that basically, this relies a lot on how one's method of interpreting it. — Judaka

Agreed and, as I noted, I think my way of interpreting conditions is more likely to help us understand the situation better than by talking about racism. It's important for us to know that 40 million Americans face daily, grinding humiliation and that we, white people, all share responsibility. I think if people understood that no one would have the balls to talk about all the benefits of slavery.

As far as I can tell, if that man had the police called on him, it was due to the owners being suspicious of men or the poor rather than black people, it's likely that you wouldn't be able to tell. — Judaka

This is clearly not true. The neighborhood being discussed is middle class and the person involved is a professional who lives there. As the article I quoted noted, other men, white men, fish there all the time without being harassed.

This Pew Research report is the sort of thing that backs up T Clark's statement. — BC

Thanks for the link... and the support.