so what and what does it say about the problem of freedom and family? — Tobias
Right, so I have been saying that a Guru's "expertise" or lack of cannot be demonstrated in a way that a musician's, artist's, engineer's, doctor's, etc can; such that an unbiased observer would have to acknowledge the expertise or lack of. You haven't said anything that demonstrates this is wrong, you have just argued against a claim that you wouldn't be able to test it yourself over a period of many years or a lifetime, which is a claim I haven't made. — Janus
Ditto, for much of ancient philosophy, sophistry, and religion. That's why Sophisticated Skepticism is a good tool for digging-out nuggets of truth. :smile: — Gnomon
Yes, by comparing different "expert's" opinions on a topic. Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists addressed similar philosophical topics, and arrived at different conclusions. Yet, thousands of years later, modern philosophers continue to debate the same old "truths". So, I carefully select from among those truth-theories the ones that best fit my personal understanding of how & why the world works as it does. That's why my worldview is pretty eclectic, but not beholden to any particular school of though:cool: — Gnomon
t. I seem to get along fine without any spirit guide or guru. Of course, I may be missing something important. So that's why I keep my antennae tuned to search for truths wherever they may originate. For me, the final arbiter of Truth is my own feeble reasoning ability.
And even then, if you have only your own experience to measure against, you might be deceiving yourself. It's always going to be matter of faith, that is inescapable. Ultimately everything, even trust in science and inter-subjectively testable knowledge is a matter of faith to some degree.
No, I think you need to be intellectually honest and admit that as fallible humans we are all capable of deceiving ourselves about almost anything. The only thing which "keeps us honest" is inter-subjective feedback and agreement, which is impossible in the context we are discussing. The "expertise" or lack of it of so-called gurus simply cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated as it can with other professions. — Janus
Further, other people may be intolerant of one and demand that one justifies one's morality to them. Such as when Christians demand that non-Christians justify themselves to them. — baker
True. Yet all the flavors of 'immateriality' are even more unsavory, more ad hoc or preposterous, and demonstrably more maladaptive for surviving & thriving as a natural species than materiality. — 180 Proof
The point is that it cannot be demonstrated to any one else. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like. — Janus
It's not supposition; expertise or lack of it can be demonstrated to anyone with an open mind in many, many fields, such that it would be clear if someone were deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others. This is simply not the case with so-called spiritual teachers. — Janus
You might become convinced that the spiritual experiment has worked and you have become enlightened. But you cannot demonstrate that to anyone else, and it is always possible that you could be deceiving yourself. — Janus
The very idea that there is "experiential knowledge" of the type you are claiming cannot be demonstrated in any way that an unbiased person would have to accept, so it remains a matter of faith. But as I said, there's no shame in that provided you are intellectually honest enough to admit it. — Janus
Don't worry about it. religious thinkers and philosophers often "talk past each other ". :cool: — Gnomon
The seat of Narayana is the lotus of the heart. The knowledge of Narayana alone is the highest form of wisdom. Sri Krishna, the son of Devaki, who is the vanquisher of Madhu is the ultimate Brahman. He alone resides in all beings. He is both the causeless and the cause of everything. — Narayana Upanishad
I didn't say you should take my opinion, I said there is no way of knowing whether there are true gurus. If there were such a way you could demonstrate that there are or are not true gurus. So it remains — Janus
I don't think that applies to anyone or anything. If someone claims to be a master musician, mathematician or athlete etc., whether or not they are deluding themselves is pretty much demonstrable. Life is short, so avoiding any path the verity of which is not at all demonstrable is simply being prudent, not being lazy. — Janus
comfort — Janus
Unless of course I find great joy or comfort in pursuing such a path, in which case my pursuing it would be based simply on my good feeling about it; which is fine. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledgement that it remains a question of faith, not of knowledge. — Janus
Unfortunately, the Hindu religion has dumbed-down (anthropomorphized) that abstraction into a mere god among gods — Gnomon
When it comes ot everyday matters you can often find out what is the case for yourself but it's not always possible. It's not even possible to know whether there really are true gurus (enlightened beings) at all. — Janus
Anyone who believes themselves to be enlightened and able to pass on their knowledge to others could well be deceiving themselves. But if going down such a path makes you happy, then why not, eh? — Janus
How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning? — PoeticUniverse
I think you are using my comment to engage in a little patronizing ad hominem. Noam Chomsky - a highly complex theorist - made this exact same point about some French thinkers. Not a naïve realist or simple man by any means. — Tom Storm
There are many marvelous scientists who do a great job, and often manage to share the results of their work with much passion, because they care, but also the necessary humility, because they care. And one can learn a lot from them. Gould for instance. — Olivier5
Then you have the type that goes around telling non-scientists that they know nothing worthwhile because they never entered a science lab, and if they did they couldn't use the instruments... It's only the latter type that I call "glorified lab technicians". They tend to be quite jealous of their exclusive access to truth, and from them, the common man can learn very little. — Olivier5
Nature consists in event-patterns (regularities) that are explainable – even if only in principle – in terms of different event-patterns (regularities) e.g. algorithmic modeling (how an event-pattern (regularity) comes about, continues, and/or ceases). Furthermore, nature is self-encompassing (i.e. finite) and causally closed (i.e. unbounded), therefore structured by regularities, which includes self-referring structures complex enough to produce knowledge (i.e. explanations) of nature using different aspects of nature in order to produce further applied knowledge (i.e. explanations of the potentialities) of 'self-referring structures complex enough to produce knowledge' (e.g. themselves). — 180 Proof
Supernature (in contrast to nature) is a notion consistent with 'unexplainable – even in principle – random (patternless) events, or ruptures, in nature from "outside" or "beyond" nature'. In other words, make-believe. If there are grounds to believe that there is supernature, that it is more than a mere appeal to ignorance woo-of-the gaps for framing (religious) just-so stories. — 180 Proof
such evidence is the best kept secret in all of human history
There may be more to nature than nature, of course, but there aren't any strong, sufficient, reasons to think so — 180 Proof
Would naturalism be close to that? The definition of naturalism is something like: the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations don't matter. At least naturalism uses extensively empiricism in the way of using the scientific method and using empirical study. — ssu
I am a new member on this forum, I have started reading Ernest Becker's Denial of death, is there a combined theory that unites rationalism and empiricism? — EnsambleMark
Some dictionary sites give "imaginary" as a synonym for "mystical". — Gnomon
But my primary concern for mystical worldviews is the synonym "occult". Labeling some aspects of the world as "occult", or "taboo" is a traditional tactic of religious leaders to "pull the wool" over the eyes of their followers. — Gnomon
Hence, you must take on faith that your guru or mystical guide has a direct line to God or to the Akashic Field. — Gnomon
I don't trust anyone who claims to know something that is not accessible to mundane observation and reasoning (e.g .the scientific method). — Gnomon
But, I also don't take the word of scientific priests for "truths" that are so far over my head that I have to take them on Faith. "Naive empiricism" is also a form of child-like Faith in the preternatural objectivity of scientists . — Gnomon
A comical example of New Age faith in mystical abilities is the comical phenomenon of "Yogic Flying". Maharishi assured his Transcendental Meditators that his techniques could give them magical powers, such as the ability to fly. So, they took his folk tale literally, and sincerely tried to prove their faith by "flying" while in the cross-legged position. — Gnomon
FWIW, I like some elements of Eastern philosophy, but most Eastern and New Age religions are just as manipulative of naive minds as Western religions. :cool: — Gnomon
Naive Empiricism refers to the belief that scientist should try to be as objective and neutral as possible when studying something. Scientists should approach a problem with no preconceived expectations or assumptions which have not been previously studied and justified using the scientific method. — Gnomon
Life without love has a seriousness to it. It is a heavy weight one has to carry, or like a hypnotic sleep. For one who loves knows many things that the one without does not. — Thinking
Love is the deception of nature to force us to reproduce. — Miguel Hernández
Love and it’s forms are overrated marketing to be honest... — javi2541997
Most scientists don't try and think too hard, in my experience. Glorified lab technicians. A lot of them have no clue why they do what they do. They just go along with the motion and get the paycheck. — Olivier5