And neither account can explain what it is to know how to ride a bike. — Banno

When I get involved in a discussion such as this one, I usually make it explicitly clear the kind of knowledge I'm talking about - specifically excluding knowing how to do something.

but we can define 'knowledge' in many ways that align with potential natural uses. — Jack2848

Sure. When I'm talking about "knowledge," it's usually in terms of how it's generally used in normal discussion. Knowledge is actionable belief - adequately justified belief. Since I can never know for certain it's true, I have to make a judgment based on the uncertainty of my information and the consequences of being wrong.

if there is no place to go… deal with them. — Wolfy48

I assume this means killing them.

Gettier cases and various other issues related to knowledge (as justified true belief) arise because of the definition. And the definition is problematic because it unnecessarily combines the act of knowing with information being true. — Jack2848

Welcome to the forum. Justified true belief is a perennial subject of discussion here. It never gets resolved. Nobody is ever convinced. Here’s my take - get rid of the requirement for truth.

‘Abandons the search for absolute causes’ is a pregnant phrase. By this, I’m sure Comte was referring to the final causes in scholastic-Aristotelian philosophy, the reason that things exist or happen to be. This rejection of final causation is the beginning of the so-called ‘instrumental reason’ that is characteristic of Enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophy. — Wayfarer

I certainly am not a positivist, but I also don't have much use final causes. That's not because they're wrong. It's just that they are not particularly useful - philosophically, socially, scientifically, practically, or personally. [insert T Clark schpiel on metaphysics here]. I think this is representative of why, in our discussions of this kind of issue, you and I sometimes agree and sometimes look down our noses at each other.

A good and thorough OP. Interesting and well written. You clearly put a lot of work into this.

A statement is meaningful only if it is empirically verifiable (i.e., its truth or falsity can be determined by observation or experience) or if it is an analytic truth (true by definition, like mathematical or logical statements). This principle led to the rejection of traditional metaphysics, ethics, and theology as "meaningless" in a cognitive sense, not false, but rather propositions that couldn't be tested. — Wayfarer

The irony is that this explanation for the rejection of metaphysics is itself metaphysics. I guess that’s just another way of saying “the principle itself fails to meet its own criterion for meaningfulness.”

they were introduced by the governments of many U.S. states and U.S. territories and they remained in force in many US states until 1967.

I was a junior in high school in a town in southern Virginia in 1967 when the most appropriately named case in legal history was decided - Loving vs the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In some ignorant benighted countries certainly. — unenlightened

After I posted I edited the post to say

That is not only a social fact, during slavery it was a legal fact too. — T Clark

I meant to refer to the US in particular.

My wife is at least as white as she is black, but she is clearly black. such are the mysteries of race-mixing. Our daughters are only slightly black, but are still black. — unenlightened

That is not only a social fact, during slavery it was a legal fact too.

However, people seem to make snide insinuations to racism and homophobia. — Malcolm Parry

A question - is it still snide if it’s true?

There is a fundamental difference between trans and other issues.
A Black person is black, a homosexual is homosexual, A trans woman is not a woman. — Malcolm Parry

You’re missing the point of my post to Amadeus D. Whether or not he, or you, think a trans woman is a woman, it doesn’t change the fact his argument has been used to deny basic rights to black and gay people.

I’m not here to argue about transgender issues. I am pointing out the consequences of his argument. Please, no more misrepresentations of what I wrote.

If a series of concepts suits the better intellectual benefit of the many then why not adopt them and dictate it as such as its already been done in legal language as regards sex? — substantivalism

Sorry, but I still don’t see how this is relevant to what I said. I was just pointing out to @AmadeusD the possible consequences of his way of seeing things.

I'm still trying to analyze why I find it peculiar and troublesome this line of thinking beyond some naïve liberal pearl clutching. — substantivalism

What I posted was a specific response to what I see as the flaws in @AmadeusD's comment on gender identity issues. I don't see the relevance of what you've written to that.

So, what can we say about these usual cases? "Clues in your thinking and your history" would be the sort of answer I'm looking for, but I question whether such clues are enough. I appeal to my own experience here: When something comes to mind and I (instantly, as far as I can tell) recognize it to be a memory, it all seems too fast and too assured to be accounted for by a sifting of thoughts and history. That's why I'm wondering whether there really is some feature we recognize -- not infallibly, but usually. — J

@Leontiskos talked about context and I think that is a better way of putting it than how I did. Everything in the mind is cross-connected. Memories are not stored in one place. They are connected with other memories of the same or similar events, places, and times. Those connections are non-linear - they're not organized in the same manner we might organize them if we did it rationally, chronologically, or functionally. In "Surfaces and Essences," Douglas Hofstadter suggests they, and all our thoughts, are connected by analogy, metaphor. That is consistent with how I experience the process.

Another possibility would be that the sifting occurs subconsciously, beneath our awareness (and very fast). — J

Yes. In my experience this is absolutely true. We don't remember things like we used to look for things in a file cabinet or card catalogue. We look for memories using a mental search engine.

Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. And it has been relatively clear that most bodies want "male" and "female" to be defined classes with a range of attributes that are biologically typical. So far, so simple. — AmadeusD

That's fine. I have some sympathy with your position when we're dealing with transgender issues. But the same arguments have been used for dealing with sexual orientation and race issues. At times, and sometimes still, most bodies want gay and black people to be classified as biologically, or at least socially or morally, atypical not to mention inferior. It's a bad argument in terms of what's right and wrong, but it's right politically - don't try to ram your values down your fellow citizen's throats. There are years of patient groundwork that has to accomplished first if you want to succeed in those kinds of social changes.

How do we recognize a memory? — J

The answer is simple - we don't... necessarily. A couple of examples.

It's not unusual for me to realize I can't tell if I remember something that happened to me or something that happened in a dream.

I have a vivid memory of something that happened when my older son was 12 and my younger son was 7. We had left them home alone for an hour or so. My daughter, who is three years older than my older son, often babysat for them both when she was 12. I vividly remember that, when we came home, my younger son was chasing my older one around the dining room table with a butcher knife. It turns out I wasn't actually there, I just remember from being told after the fact.

So, the fuller answer is "context." There are clues in your thinking and your history, but they sometimes aren't enough.

I was recently persuing this thread by Streetlight : — Baden

I do miss @streetlight. Every so often I find myself going back and rereading some of the things he did.

I sometimes just read a few paragraphs at random and marvel. — Tom Storm

Geez, now I’ll have to read it again and find out if I can see what you’re seeing.

My wife teaches it in High School English and can’t praise it enough. When I commented about the writing she began reciting some of her favorite lines from memory. — praxis

As I said, it’s not that I know it’s not good, it’s just that I don’t get it. I wish I could talk with your wife about it.

Beautifully rich writing though a little too rich for my pedestrian tastes, I guess. — praxis

There are lots of good and great books that I really don’t get. “The Great Gatsby” is certainly one of those. It’s a book full of unpleasant people doing unpleasant things to other unpleasant people for unpleasant or indecipherable reasons.

I’m impressed by all your points of view (and now I see the need for concreet examples) — Jan

Now's when you give us more of your thoughts - you know... details.

Hello everybody! I am new here. — Jan

Hello and welcome.

presume that philosofical talk has not much to do with details, but everything with the big picture. — Jan

Good post.

As I experience it, knowledge and understanding are like walls. The details are the bricks you use to build it. Good philosophers have to be masons as well as architects.

Look at what I’ve just written. For me, one detail in particular stands out. I’ve identified the source of my understanding - introspection. When I do that, it gives you the chance to evaluate whether or not my justification is adequate. Ideas don’t stand on their own, they need a superstructure to provide stability and support. Can you tell I used to be an engineer.

expects people to step up in life. — Malcolm Parry

This brings to mind something from the Tao Te Ching - from Verse 38, Gia-Fu Fengs translation.

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order. — Lao Tzu

The Village of Stepanchikovo by Fyodor Dostoevsky. — javi2541997

As usual, you’re reading too much. You need to stop for a while and watch Benny Hill reruns.

It definitely isn’t being done as I think it should. — Malcolm Parry

Without knowing for certain, I’m guessing how you think it should be done is significantly different from how I think it should be done.

I think society needs controlling without any need for recourse to morality. It shouldn’t be a “they” it should be a “we”
We need a framework for social interactions that don’t need to be linked with morality. A few social expectations of behaviour and dress would be a nice start. — Malcolm Parry

You write as if there is not such a system in place already. There is, but perhaps it is not being done in accordance with your preferences. There is often no consensus on who is we and who is they.

The older I get the and the more permissive society has become a little bit of agreed social control would be good thing. — Malcolm Parry

I wasn’t speaking against social control, it’s needed. I was only making the distinction between that and morality. But when you take out the idea of morality, social control loses much of its authority. And that’s probably a good thing. They’re doing it because they want to control my behavior, not because I did anything wrong.

I have mostly read stuff on Taoism that is tied to its contemporary formulations, so that might be the discrepancy. I don't know much about the historical development and it's quite possible that the focus on self-cultivation comes through later thinkers and cross-pollination between Confucius' tradition and Buddhism, both of which have a sort of virtue ethics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am not a student of Taoism. I focus my attention on the Chuang Tzu and Tao Te Ching, although I do read other documents and commentaries sometimes. Since they were written 2,500ish years ago, Taoism has grown and branched in many different directions. The Chuang Tzu and Tao Te Ching, as I understand them, are philosophical, not religious, texts. The Taoist religion which grew out of these documents as well as others has ten million or so adherents, mostly in China and Taiwan. I know very little about that or other philosophical branches which have grown up and very little about Taoist practice. I do practice Tai Chi in my own halting manner, but I find that more a physical than a spiritual practice. I try to be clear what the limited basis of my understanding of Taoist principles is.

I've seen Chuang Tzu presenting as laying out a sort of model for self-cultivation in some anecdotes. So for instance, there is a butcher who becomes incredibly skilled in his trade and it is because he has ceased to try to implement a sort of false constraint on his art, or even to "see a cow" (IIRC), but has instead learned to "flow" totally with nature. This interpretation might rest on later additions though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The story of the butcher is one of the most famous from the Chuang Tzu. This is from Brook Ziporyn's translation

The king said, “Ah! It is wonderful that skill can reach such heights!” The cook put down his knife and said, “What I love is the Course, going beyond mere skill. When I first started cutting up oxen, all I saw for three years was oxen, and yet still I was unable to see all there was to see in an ox. But now I encounter it with the imponderable spirit in me rather than scrutinizing it with the eyes. For when the faculties of officiating understanding come to rest, imponderable spirit like impulses begin to stir, relying on the unwrought perforations. Striking into the enormous gaps, they are guided through those huge hollows, going along in accord with what is already there and how it already is. — Chuang Tzu

If anyone is interested, here's the entire entry. I'll hide it so it doesn't take up too much space.



I can see why you would say this is a description of cultivation. It took the cook many years of practice before he rose to the level he did. Similar examples you often hear describe musicians and artists who reach a level of skill where they no longer think about what they are doing. Their work arises spontaneously from inside them without effort. I have had similar experiences. I, and I think Chuang Tzu, see it a bit differently. As the story says "when the faculties of officiating understanding come to rest, imponderable spirit like impulses begin to stir." The emphasis is on the surrender of intellectual understanding to our inner nature, our Te. This is known as "wu wei," acting without acting. It's something that can be used, that we all use, on a daily basis in our lives.

Many people would agree with you that some sort of cultivating practice is required to follow Lao Tzu's way. One of the reasons I resist that is because I am fundamentally a lazy person. Taoism is, or at least can be, a lazy man's spiritual path.

Our mind was born into a place with time (and space) therefore time was a priori to mind. — Punshhh

Not according to Kant, and I have some sympathy with his way of seeing things. In my interpretation of what he said, time is something we bring to the world.

What do you think of Bertrand Russell's views on time: — Down The Rabbit Hole

I sent the document you linked to my Kindle. Thanks.

Some thoughts:

In "Critique of Pure Reason" Immanuel Kant wrote.

Space and time, along with what they contain, are not things, or properties of things, in themselves, but belong merely to the appearances of such things...space (and time too...), along with all its determinations, can be cognized by us a priori, for space, as well as time, inheres in us before all perception or experience as a pure form of our sensibility and makes possible all intuition from sensibility, and therefore all appearances. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Kant's Views on Space and Time

I interpret this in the light of Konrad Lorenz's explanation in two publications - "Behind the Mirror" and "Kant's Doctrine Of The A Priori In The Light Of Contemporary Biology."

What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers. The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

I find these explanations plausible when taken together.

Perhaps the only reason we recognize time as a separate entity is because it has a direction - past to present to future. In general, the laws of physics do not require or specify this directionality. As I understand it, the explanation for this lack of symmetry is the second law of thermodynamics. Closed systems tend to develop from conditions of lower entropy to higher. Another way to say this is that interactions move in the direction of the most probable outcome. Broken eggs don't spontaneously repair themselves because the unbroken condition is very, very unlikely.

Then there are the consequences of special relativity in regards to time. The rate of the passage of time and the relative simultaneity of events depends on the observer's frame of reference. And then general relativity defines time as a dimension equal to the three spatial dimensions.

What does this all mean in respect to the OP? I'm not sure.

It strikes me you are conflating two different but related issues. The first involves the personal, psychological, and spiritual path you have followed to a more satisfying life. The second involves a social and political approach to addressing the problem for society as a whole. There’s no reason you can’t be involved with addressing both issues, but, as I noted, they are different and require different stratagies and mindsets.

Why am I not still depressed? Because retirement allowed me to get the hell out of the rat's nest and rat race of working. (It wasn't 'the work' per se; it was the negative aspects of the work-system. — BC

You are exactly right. I often tell people that many of our problems can be solved simply by retiring. 30 year olds with two children rarely find this useful. Generally they recognize I am joking. Sometimes they even laugh.

As everyone knows, cake stores serve customers on a first come first served basis. Since Pete‘s first, he takes an Eccles cake. Geraldine is second, so she also takes an Eccles cake. Ursula takes the iced finger. Nothing for Abdul.

No philosophy needed.

To start, I just wanted to say that it's fun to discuss things with you.

I don't know if it's that much of a contradiction. I suppose that quote, taken alone, could be read in a very Nietzschean or Sartrean light, but I have always seen Taoist notions of freedom set in opposition to the former, often as their polar opposite (although I think they are opposites that might meet at their limit). — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think there really is a contradiction, a pretty fundamental and radical one. As for your quote - I didn't read the paper and I am not familiar with author, but without going through it in detail, I don't have any problem with what they've written. But I don't think it's really relevant to the issue at hand. It's true, Taoist principles as I understand them don't call for an aggressive rejection of social standards and focus more on adjusting our self-awareness. As he author of the quote wrote - "The more one desires or expects, the less one is free." I read that as meaning the less one is free to follow their true nature, their Te.

We could go back and forth on this, but I'd rather just point back to the Chuang Tzu quote I included in my previous post. That seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

There is obviously a similarity here with Indian thought and with Western pagan thought, with its struggle for ataraxia and apatheia (as well as the fruits of contemplation, e.g. "enlightenment" or "henosis," which have a more positive element). — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I understand it, Taoist principles don't really deal with enlightenment much. It's always seemed more down-home and pragmatic than Buddhism to me - keeping in mind the limitations of my knowledge of Buddhism. That's why I'm so attracted to it's ideas. It is the deepest essence of Taoism that there is no goal, only a path.

The emphasis on self-cultivation—and the role of the sage, the daoshi, and the zhenren—seem to follow the intuition of other traditions that the renunciatory move often isn't spontaneous, but rather requires received wisdom, reflexive discipline, and guidance—in a word, cultivation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Boy, this is really different from my understanding. I admit I do have a very simple relationship with Taoism. I focus on the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu, although I have read other texts and explications. That, along with introspection, helps me try to follow my own path. In particular, there is no focus on "cultivation" in these texts. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have a strong anti-intellectual strain in their writing. There is also no focus on discipline, meditation, or other practice. In "Tao - the Watercourse Way," Alan Watt's has this to say?

In making this point I realize that vis-à-vis modern Ch'an (Zen) disciplinarians of the "aching legs" brand of Buddhism, I am a deplorable heretic, since for them za-zen (sitting Zen) and sesshin (long periods of it) are the sine qua non of awakening (or enlightenment) according to their school. I have been sharply reprimanded for this opinion in Kapleau (1), pp. 21-22, 83-84, although the only text he quotes from early Zen literature in refutation is from the Huang-po Tuan-chi Ch'an-shih Wang-ling Lu (before +850): "When you practice mind-control [ts'o-ch'an], sit in the proper position, stay perfectly tranquil, and do not permit the least movement of your minds to disturb you" (tr. Blofeld [1], p. 131). Considering the vast emphasis laid on za-zen in later times, it is strange that this is all. Huang-po has to say about it. The reader interested in the roots of this matter has only to consult Hui-neng's T'an-ching (tr. Chan Wing-tsit [1] or Yampolsky [1], esp. sec. 19), or the Shen-hui Ho-chang I-chi (tr. Gernet [1], esp. sec. 1.111), or Ma-tsu in Ku-tsun-hsü Yü-lu (tr. Watts [1], p. 110). For later discussions see Fung Yu-lan (1), vol. 2, pp. 393-406, and Hu Shih. All this evidence corroborates the view that the T'ang masters of Ch'an deplored the use of meditation exercises as a means to the attainment of true insight (wu, or Japanese satori). I had further confirmation of this view in private discussions with D. T. Suzuki and R. H. Blyth, both of whom regarded compulsive "aching legs" za-zen as a superstitious fetish of modern Zen practice. — Alan Watts - Tao - the Watercourse Way

I recognize this seems to mostly be talking about Japanese Zen Buddhism, but that developed out of Chinese Chan Buddhism, which developed directly from Taoism. Watts certainly intends it's skepticism about cultivation to apply to Taoist practice as well as Buddhist.

You don't think good, or at least adequate parenting, education, etc. are prerequisites for "living a better life," developing self-control, or having the capacity to be a good citizen? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a quote I use often when discussing moral issues. It's from the Chuang Tzu, also known as the Zhuangzi - the second founding text of Taoism. This is from Ziporyn's translation.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

I recognize this might end our conversation, since this is in such obvious contradiction to your understanding and values.

Yes, one is not free to become a "good father," a "just leader," or a "good teacher," without filling social expectations either...

...This is often where "authenticity as freedom" goes off the rails. Authenticity is important, but without reflexive freedom it is just following impulse and instinct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

These are exactly the illusory "norms" discussed in the OP. You can't really get rid of any of them without at least an inkling of getting rid of all of them.

Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. To quote Hegel, “individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives.”

This strikes me as close to what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are talking about.

Social Freedom then is the collective resolution of these contradictions through the creation of social institutions. Ideally, institutions objectify morality in such a way that individuals’ goals align, allowing people to freely choose actions that promote each other’s freedom and wellbeing.

Taoist principles as I understand them don't forbid following these social rules, but, for a wise person, that behavior is a matter of the spontaneity of their "intrinsic virtuosities," which in ancient Chinese is "Te."

[Lao Tzu] might not even have been a real person. The text appears to be an accretion. Siddhartha Gautama might have been a better example. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Jesus might not have been a real person. The Bible is also clearly an accretion. I chose Lao Tzu because I find his principles compelling. I don't know Buddhist doctrine well enough to judge.

As I said, maybe this is all we have to say to each other on this issue.

Isn't this precisely what people like Laotze and St. Francis thought they were doing by telling people to stop following worldly ambitions, helping others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I understand it, Lao Tzu certainly didn’t.

the best thing to do when one is fretting over how distorted and ambitious humans are is to go out and help others. — Tom Storm

Maybe this is related - Since retirement, as my life has become less stressful and I don’t have to be involved with the difficulties of involuntary social interactions as much, I have become more generous.

One of the signs of prosperity and good fortune may be a tendency to grumble about how bad everything is. — Tom Storm

I agree with all this. To be fair to the OP, they were talking more about spiritual, psychological, and social conditions rather than economic ones.

Since people have exploited others for forever it's not inhuman, but that's inhumane in the sense of humanism or wanting more than this violence. — Moliere