We choose commercial objects provided by the useless overproduction of capitalism in hopes to use them as symbols of our intentions, but these objects are always doomed to fail - because they are not for expression, but for admiration like art. You can recognize their independent beauty, but you cannot use them as your own.

But we as humans, will always try to become part of something, a life that item is supposed to have but lacks. And the disappointment is too much struggle for comprehension so we reject it. Instead, we move on to the next promise of desire. When I buy a guitar, I want it to become a part of me, but it never can, but the only way I can truly have it is if I treat it as a separate fantasy that I can only observe. I can re-create it, but I’ll never want people who observe that beauty to attribute it to me - I am no part of it. I am its mere reflection. — Levon Nurijanyan

I'm not really sure what any of that means in real terms.

We are unable to express ourselves adequately and that’s the internal struggle; the anxiety of being understood — Levon Nurijanyan

And how would you go about demonstrating this? Is this true of all of us or just some? Do we know it? I don't know it... I don't feel this.

When I buy a guitar, I want it to become a part of me, but it never can, but the only way I can truly have it is if I treat it as a separate fantasy that I can only observe. — Levon Nurijanyan

I bought a guitar during Covid. It worked as expected and I went about learning chords and how to pluck strings. At no point did I want it to be a 'part of me' but that feeling can follow when people become good at something. You can't make it happen. I'm not sure I understand this point - what is a 'separate fantasy that only I observe'?

He has drawbacks: his scholarship is quite bad; he is prone to exaggeration and even makes things up(!) and he has a tendency to want to complicate or extend a certain type of "Hegelian logic" way beyond specific instances in which such a counter-intuitive way of thinking may be of use or of interest. — Manuel

:yikes:

So, it's a mixed bag, — Manuel

Thanks. The lectures are quite interesting to watch (I've probably seen a dozen or so) but I often find at the end of them I haven't been left with anything much.

Mummy called the repressed child 'Being good, and the spontaneous child She called Being naughty. So the evening and the morning were the first day of the moralising child. — unenlightened

Nicely done.

Fair enough. By derivative I simply meant derived directly from noumena and 'constructed' through our cognitive limitations.

I'm not sure. I guess I am unclear about how empiricism can be said to have a firm traction on reality if that reality is provisional or, shall we say, derivative? I guess Kant must be saying this is what we have access to. Our reality is derivative but consistent and subject to predictable regularities.

Firstly, thanks for taking the trouble.

This is an idea you have of yourself that you identify with, and claim as your self, in relation to some meaningful others. There must be many other relations, familial, professional, neighbourly, social, from which you derive all sorts of other characterisations — the joker of the family, the only one in the office who actually does anything, the fight defuser at the bar, the guy who always came top in metalwork at school. And the sum of these various ideas is your 'narrative identity'. and all your experiences are the experiences of that identity, and your response are the responses of that identity, which develops through time with experience. And this self is always comparative and thereby judgemental - I am smarter than a brick and faster than a snail, but not as beautiful as a sunset.

A non-linguistic animal cannot form a narrative identity; they learn things - not to eat the yellow snow, but they never form the identity "I don't like yellow snow", they just avoid it when they see it. So they do not live in time, psychologically. they are always just here and now, with whatever they know, which is nothing of themselves. — unenlightened

Yep. Good, all this is something I have considered for many years.

And the crux of all this as you have correctly identified, you crude thinker, you, is that I propose a state of enlightenment, where the self is 'transcended' and one again lives without time and without the comparing judgement that becomes morality, but retaining the glorious creative potential of language. This is the fulfilment of human potential, and the end of the narrative self that otherwise has to end in mere death. — unenlightened

I see. Yes some of this resonates fairly well and is not dissimilar to positions I hold (and were probably influenced by Narrative Therapy; my background is in community work). I was unable to glean this from your OP. The most difficult thing most of us carry around with us are our personal stories - generally understood as judgments about who we are and who we are not.

I am unclear how 'comparing judgment' becomes morality.

Do you have a view about how language maps onto reality or do you see it as 'glorious' metaphor?

I follow the argument and thanks but it is somehow unsatisfying. :wink:

It just seems like if your concept of UFOs requires you to work through various physics with space travel priblems and whatnot , then your creative writing isn't creative enough. — Hanover

:up:

I think most people would agree to these 5 things - you missed "e".

Problem comes with the interpretation, right? What counts as slavery? I would include wage slavery, but others might not. I can't seem many people agreeing on how "f" should look, even if they all agree with the sentiment. With "a", just how would we determine what counts as 'extreme thought and care'? Maybe 'rigorous' would be better than 'extreme'. But can you see this leading to 'only psychologically stable and wealthy people with means should have children', or any number of unpleasant permutations.

:up:

:up: Too complex for me, but I get the drift.

Modern philosophy with its psychologized idealism is not my cup of tea. — introbert

Interesting point. Are you thinking of forms of phenomenology here?

Kant says he is an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist. I think for Kant sensory appearances are real. — Janus

So to break this down, Kant seems to be saying we have no choice but to accept empiricism even if it isn't a reflection of things as they are in themselves?

I'm not quite sure how sensory experiences are 'real' given his model - does this mean they are all that is available to us and produced by our interaction with noumena which are real? The reality of sense data seems to be a 'translation' or interpretation of the real.

The story so far is that we (humans) have fallen out of the present continuous of living, into a story that is always a moral story, always judgemental. We do not live in what is, but in what was, what might have been what could be and what ought to be and ought to have been.

There can be no return to the innocence of not knowing. But we live in the story of what ought to be, and it contradicts what is that we still also inhabit, willy-nilly — and the only way to resolve that conflict is to make the word flesh; which is to say to make the life we lead the same as the life we know we ought to lead. — unenlightened

Nicely worded. Is this the crux of your narrative?

You are lost in an endless forest of signposts all pointing in different directions. — unenlightened

Indeed. Always.

Interesting story. Unfortunately as someone who has not privileged philosophy and is a fairly crude thinker, I'm not sure what this story is about. Can you dumb it down? (I did read your comments above)

The interaction is the problem, basically. At least for now, to our present knowledge, the speed of light is a bit of an obstacle.

If we solve our "limitations in our understanding" and create the faster than light hyperdrives or teleportation, then there's a bit more to the subject of interaction with aliens. — ssu

Agree. I wonder if the laws of physics are more about human cognitive limitations than reality. Do we have a full description and understanding of reality? No. My sense is it is a mistake to construct any ideas about aliens using our own technology or our understanding of physics as first principles - tempting and difficult to avoid though it might be.

I heard Bernado Kastrup say (some YouTube interview) that Kant is not an idealist. What do you think?

No, I won't have to concede that, because I don't think reason without sense data produces knowledge. It is not a valid inference from the fact that sense data combined with reason produces knowledge to a claim that reason on its own can produce knowledge. — Janus

:fire:

I've been reading the Google preview of that book, and have just now ordered the hard copy. It is an account of Schopenhauer's reading of the Upaniṣads, of which he had a Latin copy, translated from a Persian edition. According to this book, published 2014, they along with Plato and Kant were the major formative influences on Schopenhauer's mature philosophy. — Wayfarer

How do you account for Schopenhauer's formulation of antinatalism, pessimism and negativity? Do you think his worldview (presumably acquired via his reading) was reasonable or extreme?

One’s political views are going to be dependent on one’s morals and amoral goals—no metaphysical view in-itself tells us what to do here, but it can end up being what formulates our morals (e.g., if we shouldn’t hurt what is a part of ourselves and we are of the same mind, then we shouldn’t hurt each other). — Bob Ross

I hope it's the latter and not just business as usual. Which I guess is a Christian view - love your neighbour as you do yourself. The reason being we are all the same being... :wink:

I personally can't identify reasons to change how I interact with the world, regardless of the metaphysics or ontology posited. So I am wondering how useful it is to even have views on ontology, other than a common sense account, which may not be true, but has the virtue of working well enough as a frame.

Any view can lead to nihilism, although some more than others, and anyone can be happy under any of them—nihilism is a reflection of one’s psychology and nothing more. — Bob Ross

I agree.

But the underlying philosophical point is mistaking the illusory for the real, although of course for that to be meaningful, there must be some kind of inkling of a higher reality, which is also pretty non-PC in today's culture. — Wayfarer

I understand the lineage of this this view, I'm just wondering how it helps to think this way.

Wouldn't be much of a leap to take the view that the world is malignant, that birth and children are a curse and take up a position wherein nuclear annihilation might be a useful way to demolish this metaphysical Bastille. Isn't climate change ultimately coming to liberate us from the cycle of death and rebrith? Why act to prevent it?

The world as prison... Not sure that quote helps.

A wise response, Janus.

For example, it seems to me that very often, if not always, the motivation for believing in idealism is the hope that the self does not perish with the body. — Janus

Of course, and like an idiot I didn't even consider this aspect.

Only a few brain-washed nuts actually attempt to walk through walls, which, according to subatomic physics, are 99% empty space (image below). — Gnomon

A cryptic answer to my question. I'm not sure I follow you.

As per Kastrup; mentation presents itself to us in the peculiar way we have come to understand as physical. We can leave this aspect of idealism in brackets.

My question is pragmatic and existential. I am a pragmatist - in the non-philosophical sense of this word.

Here we have a significant debate about ontology. I wonder what follows from one of the answers. How does how we live change if idealism is true?

I hear you. For me, with a mindset of philosophical ignorance, almost everything sounds like a violation of common sense. :razz:

As far as I can tell, the Universal Mind adheres to strict laws.
— Bob Ross

There’s no legitimate reason to think that, insofar as it contradicts the notion that the universal mind does no meta-cognitive deliberations, which it would have to do in order to determine what laws are, and the conditions under which they legislate what it can do, which determines what it is. — Mww

Could it be that Universal Mind "adhering to strict laws" is merely the wrong choice of words? Maybe he means that reality (including laws of logic, physics, etc) have universal mind as their source. The foundations of reality are grounded in Universal Mind. Or something like that.

Interesting question. I suspect that boredom and sadness come in soft and hard forms and both are probably unendurable when experience with intensity for an extended period. I've not often been sad, but I have often been bored (the soft variety). The problem with boredom is an inability to pay attention for extended periods. My boredom often means I can't watch long-form TV or sit through a movie or finish a book. Detail is painful or puts me to sleep. Boredom feels like tedium, restlessness, weariness, and a frustrated attempt to find engagement. In its extreme form, it probably does feel like anhedonia (and even physical pain) as you suggest.

I really like how that was worded.

We really have no idea what either physicality or mentality are in any substantial sense. — Janus

I think this touches on something important. I've heard Chomsky make a similar statement. And of course, Chomsky concedes he is a Kantian in relation to human sense making and language being aspects of the human cognitive apparatus - we are 'contained' by these. But we keep wanting to escape our cognitive limitations and make pronouncements about reality as it is in itself.

Out of interest - let's assume we do accept analytic idealism as our ontological situation - what practical changes would this initiate in terms of human behavior? How much changes in terms of morality, human rights, climate change, political discourse, in short, how we live?

I think that Foucault's The Care of the Self is a close examination of this "Epicurean" virtue. — Paine

Thanks. That's that's come up a bit. I need to find time to investigate it.

I am fascinated by how possessions seem to be used to construct a kind of wish fulfilment identity and manage feelings of inadequacy.

In general there are several codified shapes in UAP land. The saucer is one, cigar shapes and more famously, tic tacs (as recorded on US Navy videos and famously seen by Commander David Fraver) and large black triangles, are also key in eyewitness accounts.

Do you wish that UFOs, Alien Abductions, and Alien Visits were, in fact, REAL, meaning our planet has been visited by aliens from another star system, and that aliens may be present on our planet right now? — BC

No. Unless it means aliens can save us from ourselves - climate change, nuclear war, etc.

Or, do you fear that UFO stories may actually be true, and it frightens you greatly? — BC

I don't know anything factual about aliens. I do believe people see UAP's (as they are now known) but I have little idea what these are. Probably a mix of phenomena.

Or, do you think this is all malarky? — BC

I don't know that it's all malarkey. I think there are sometimes phenomena that we have no explanation for. This means I do not believe that UAP's are aliens visiting earth but I don't say there is no such thing.

If aliens have technology that can 'bypass' the laws of physics we know and travel light years in little time, then they may well be so advanced that talking to them would be for them what talking to a chimp might be for us.

Also, from a more Kantian perspective - what if human cognitive apparatus allows us to see a version of reality that does not include alien reality? Could not an advanced species, with different cognitive capacity and an alternate physicality, inhabit the 'space' we do not experience?

In any case, he’s not a climate denier and seems to reject capitalism, so he’s certainly not doing any harm, in my view. — Mikie

:lol:

I prefer to think of these displays as worship of Lucasfilm before the reformation.

Cool. It's a theme I've been thinking about a lot since I joined this site.

Nice. Yes, I can see how this might get messy.

But it could also be interpreted not as an exaggeration. What is it to “have reasons”? If it’s to have arrived at the love through ratiocination, or if it means that reasons are somehow constitutive of it, or are the motivation for it, then the statement is accurate. I don’t decide to love someone based on a deduction.

So under that interpretation, giving or thinking of reasons post hoc is not what “having reasons” means.

Neither does it mean the causes of your love. An omniscient psychologist’s discovery of the objective reasons that you love a person—the causes of your love—is not what is being discussed. What it’s about is having reasons of your own, as justification for your feeling.

It’s a rich insight (though hardly an original one), so try to understand before rejecting. Be curious. — Jamal

I think that's a useful frame and it is insightful. I've generally held that most of the things I am passionate about did not come about through reasoning - music, art, books, films, people. Much of my reasoning about things is post hoc - I'm not sure if these are 'justifications', since I feel they are true to or integrated with my thinking and beliefs. I am fairly sure in life we have emotional impulses (inclinations/interests) and we fill these in with reasoning after the fact. My wording is a bit clumsy, but you know what I mean?

Cool, thanks. Yeah, I heard him say that Butler is a 'good friend' of his.

He's a serious philosopher who made the "mistake" of having a sense of humour, being entertaining, and relating his work to everyday life. — Baden

Ha! He seems very likable.

I think it would be very difficult on reading and understanding one of his books to come to that conclusion. I've fully read "Violence", "Enjoy your Symptom", and "How to Read Lacan" so far, as well as much of "the Parallax View" and "the Sublime Object of ldeology". — Baden

Interesting. Would it be fair to say he is a divisive figure?

I'm never going to get into Lacan or Hegel - it's just not an interest of mine and I am too old - does he have a useful reading of these guys?

I understand. I came to many of the same positions Epicureanism seems to hold by myself, without reading the work. Apart from abusing alcohol for many years, I have never been much interested in food, money, or consumer goods. I long to live without a car. I am a half-arsed or 'soft' minimalist and came to this outlook back in 1990. I own almost no appliances and minimal furniture. I was so repelled by the 1980's, selfish, consumerist, 'greed is good' culture that I went in this direction in reaction.

Having the feelings I have is no effort at all for me, I love my wife and my children unconditionally or a Zizek says, 'for no reason' - unreasonably. And when one of them screams at me and rushes off slamming the door, it hurts, and I still love them. And there is no reason why. — unenlightened

I have to I am sympathetic to this view. Love and reason do seem unconnected to me too. However to say categorically there is no reason may be pushing things. Could there not be reasons we are unaware of, or dimly ware of? We are attracted to people for reasons that are, possibly, hard wired in us. We go for certain types of people or genders and we are attracted to certain types of appearances, personalities and behaviors. It isn't a rational process, I agree, but there are still reasons. I am attracted to generosity and kindness and intelligence and humor. If the people I am attracted to hang around long enough, I may also grow to love them.

I am interested in you critiquing reason several times on this thread. Do I take it you believe the enlightenment project was largely a failure and that reason (which became a new god) has acquired a poisonous dimension under secular materialistic culture?

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, although he’s published books. — Mikie

Yes, that's kind of what I was wondering about.

Keyword: things. Logic is not a thing. If a label is required for some reason, I’d just call it a condition, or maybe a axiom or fundamental principle of a theory. Heck, maybe just a merely necessary presupposition, in order to ground all that follows from it. All of which lend themselves quite readily to analysis. This is metaphysics after all, immune to proof from experience, so there are some permissible procedural liberties, so maybe logic is just that which prohibits such liberties from running amuck.

Besides, it is possible that the human intellect is itself naturally predisposed to what we eventually derive as logical conditions, so maybe we put so much trust in the power of pure logic for no other reason than we just are logical intelligences. Maybe we just can’t be not logically inclined. — Mww

I like it. Nicely expressed.