On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:48 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;136323 wrote:

It may be. This would explain why our non-logical causality is so justified by its success for adaptation...

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 10:49 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;136323 wrote:

2- Why do most of Idealists Theists imagine God as something aside from the Universe ?

Hegel is not an idealist as he sees all distinctions as imposed by the "mind/matter/geist/x/logos/it/thing/unnamable/selfnaming". As indeed, they seem to be. This is his great leap. The word "geist" is just the X becoming conscious of itself as the imposer of concepts. "Matter" and "mind" are both just products of something that cannot be truly named, but only inferred from fundamental logic. As Wittgenstein did.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 10:51 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;136323 wrote:

This is Hegel & Witt. "Mind" is just an object of (whatever creates concepts)
 
Sean OConnor
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:51 pm
@jeeprs,
Amen to that. From there, hopefully a stimulus in optimizing individual karma thus optimizing social/universal karma could really increase prosperity of man kind. I have found one way to do this but don't assume or even insist it would work for anybody else except a source of great inspiration.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:52 pm
@Pythagorean,
I think I will unsubscribe this thread now. I do understand where Pythagorean was coming from, and the points he wanted to raise, because I am sympathetic to his perspective. I think there were some pretty good arguments put forward for the idealist perspective, which went unanswered (as distinct from 'ridiculed'). Those who ridicule it, have little understanding of it and are afraid to look foolish if they say anything serious. So it is easier to trivialise it or engage in scatalogical humor.

/bye
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;136323 wrote:

Both H & W & (zwidorff) Smile
think that it is! the unification is managed by seeing the collision of transcendentals. By realizing that no concept is the source of concept itself. and this hard core of concept-quantification is one of those trancendentals, and spatial-reality and qualia is the other ....(Quantifcation and Quality)

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;136323 wrote:


This is why H considered philosophy superior to Christianity, although the myth of Christianity is a picture of the basic metaphor. That mind-matter and spirit-body are actually (inferred) one, with distinctions imposed by the fundamental logic of the human mind. the source of numbers, logic, etc.

the true "thing" cannot be pictured, as it is the source of all pictures. it is inferred from basic logic. the core of w & h examine fundamental onto-logy. think your most abstract thought, and deduce from there.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 10:58 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;136323 wrote:


This is exactly my view. One of the transcendentals is pure logic. Positing and negation. And this negation is the same damn thing as synthesis, because synthesis/abstraction is just the negation of the accident which leaves the remainder as the essence. Essence and accident. 1 and -/+,

Or in Wittgenstein its just "tautology and contradiction." We are binary! Except that this binary logic is applied to sensual continuous spatial presence, (remembering that all of these words are binary impositions....)

As "mystical" as it sounds, the logical transcendental is -/1
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:59 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;136332 wrote:
I think I will unsubscribe this thread now. I do understand where Pythagorean was coming from, and the points he wanted to raise, because I am sympathetic to his perspective. I think there were some pretty good arguments put forward for the idealist perspective, which went unanswered (as distinct from 'ridiculed'). Those who ridicule it, have little understanding of it and are afraid to look foolish if they say anything serious. So it is easier to trivialise it or engage in scatalogical humor.

/bye
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:01 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;136281 wrote:
Direct question: do you have any knowledge of the various philosophies which depict mind or intelligence as the 'fundamental ground' of reality?


This is exactly the right question!!!! True philosophy. Hard core ontology. What is the essence? And I say it's nothing but....the essence of essence, which must be inferred from human experience,, which is never devoid of "essence"/"concept"
 
Sean OConnor
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:05 pm
@Reconstructo,
essence could be described as a spirit;particular force and how it shifts the mood within thinking, and such is creative act/experience and the key is harmonizing as we think----this is why we love music, is it not?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:10 pm
@Sean OConnor,
Sean O'Connor;136341 wrote:
essence could be described as a spirit;particular force and how it shifts the mood within thinking, and such is creative act/experience and the key is harmonizing as we think----this is why we love music, is it not?



yes, essence would be one half of man as "spirit" or "unnamable" collision of essence and accident. wittgenstein proves that all thought is accident in relation to the transcendental essence/root logical structure of the human mind.

music is continuous, unlike concept. yes, it gives us what the concept cannot. in a way, schopenhauer was right. but "Wille" is too damn specific. what is required is a negative ontology, that does not define the transcendental, except to the degree that it reveals its structure. after all, all of our definitions are arguable imposed by this transcendental...(the namer can never name itself, as the namer is outside of space and time, a transcendental....
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136344 wrote:
yes, essence would be one half of man as "spirit" or "unnamable" collision of essence and accident. wittgenstein proves that all thought is accident in relation to the transcendental essence/root logical structure of the human mind.

music is continuous, unlike concept. yes, it gives us what the concept cannot. in a way, schopenhauer was right. but "Wille" is too damn specific. what is required is a negative ontology, that does not define the transcendental, except to the degree that it reveals its structure. after all, all of our definitions are arguable imposed by this transcendental...(the namer can never name itself, as the namer is outside of space and time, a transcendental....


Take the accident out of it...accident is phenomena...there are no true accidents...how could it ? :rolleyes:
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:21 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;136345 wrote:
Take the accident out of it...accident is phenomena...there are no true accidents...how could it ? :rolleyes:


Because we all live different lives. But accident is synthesized by self-consciousness as self-consciousness of negative ontology relatavizes distinctions such as self and other, mind and matter, time, cause, etc. The final synthesis is "it's" self-consciousness as the imposer of all forms immersed in qualia.

Real life still requires pragmatism, natural science, our cultural heritage of cause and self, self and other, as all these ideas were useful, and are still useful...but a pure and logical ontology recognizes all distinctions as contingent. And this is utterly sublime. As Witt said, whatever we can think is logical. But this logic is immersed in qualia, which makes anything but formal logic an imperfectly true, or partially accidental, statement.
The TLP is negative metaphysics. All thought is accidental. The only non-accidental thought is the recognition of this. As this is the recognition of our essence AS essence, as the imposer of essence. The TLP is the best book in 20th century philosophy, except perhaps for Kojeve. But the TLP is utterly minimal, and nails only at the absolute core of the matter. It's a silver bullet. I couldn't understand it until Kojeve gave the dope on H. Wittgenstein is the square root, the essence of Hegel's radical logic.

I suspect that both thinkers are so radical that few people have truly understood either of them. I count myself lucky. It's a stong & brilliant case. Utterly logical. That's why the cross is a great myth. The incarnation. Hegel is a sort of monism, but I like "nonism" for this monism essentially negates itself. Just as w humans are always rethinking things. It's our essence. -1
 
Sean OConnor
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
then perhaps we can all gain from stimulating one another to enrich rhymically, spiritually, intellectually, physically, et cetera. I like to think the world is heading in this direction but I think until philosophy sees its day in the media, I mean...Good, true, unsettling philosophy, the world will still being missing a sense of core necessary social value
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:29 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136349 wrote:
Because we all live different lives. But accident is synthesized by self-consciousness as self-consciousness of negative ontology relatavizes distinctions such as self and other, mind and matter, time, cause, etc. The final synthesis is "it's" self-consciousness as the imposer of all forms immersed in qualia.

Real life still requires pragmatism, natural science, our cultural heritage of cause and self, self and other, as all these ideas were useful, and are still useful...but a pure and logical ontology recognizes all distinctions as contingent. And this is utterly sublime. As Witt said, whatever we can think is logical. But this logic is immersed in qualia, which makes anything but formal logic an imperfectly true, or partially accidental, statement.
The TLP is negative metaphysics. All thought is accidental. The only non-accidental thought is the recognition of this. As this is the recognition of our essence AS essence, as the imposer of essence. The TLP is the best book in 20th century philosophy, except perhaps for Kojeve. But the TLP is utterly minimal, and nails only at the absolute core of the matter. It's a silver bullet. I couldn't understand it until Kojeve gave the dope on H. Wittgenstein is the square root, the essence of Hegel's radical logic.

I suspect that both thinkers are so radical that few people have truly understood either of them. I count myself lucky. It's a stong & brilliant case. Utterly logical. That's why the cross is a great myth. The incarnation. Hegel is a sort of monism, but I like "nonism" for this monism essentially negates itself. Just as w humans are always rethinking things. It's our essence. -1
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 12:56 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;136351 wrote:



And I don't mind being assimilated by your unity! :sarcastic:

I relate to anyone who speculates on the likes of this stuff. We both see the union as numinous.. man-mind unifies, finds structure, yes?
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 07:14 am
@Sean OConnor,
Sean O'Connor;136331 wrote:
Amen to that. From there, hopefully a stimulus in optimizing individual karma thus optimizing social/universal karma could really increase prosperity of man kind. I have found one way to do this but don't assume or even insist it would work for anybody else except a source of great inspiration.



I have noted a few of your responses Sean, and I find that you have a hold on a particular truth that many others do not understand. If you are interested you can visit the link in my signature to see how our views connect.

I would like to ask you how you perceive karma, and what would be this one way to promote prosperity would be. I believe that how man defines these two definitions is key to the evolution of the consciousness.

If you are uncomfortable doing that in this thread feel free to PM me and I will share my email with you..
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 07:27 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;136279 wrote:
That's not the issue. The issue is that you do not know the origin of the process that leads to the existence of human minds. And you are in effect saying that anyone who disagrees with you is making an unreasonable argument. Isn't that what your position comes down to?


Disagrees with me about what?
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 07:29 am
@Pathfinder,
In support of what I think Sean is saying, all of this banter about interpreting various philosophical minds only leads to commentaries which are no more than personal opinion. I understand that this is a search for truth, but in the discourse all I hear is blah blah blah, which gets the response blah blah blah in return.

Can we agree that in thousands of years of philosophical wit we still do not have the answer and continue to debate the same old same old?

How is this any different than the religious stalemates that we readily discard as foolishness?

Digging in the sand for evidence should not be a matter of who can dig the biggest and most obvious hole. If the actual evidence is found in the smallest hole what does that say about all of this philosophical debating?

It is good for man to use their minds, but it is not good for man to lose their minds in the process.

My advice is to keep it simple and logical. Be aware that your brain is not your friend, and try to see yourself as part of the whole instead of an individual aspect of it.

It will be when we begin to think as humanity instead of human that we begin to realize the truth.

Why does one look in the mirror and focus on their face as who they are? Why not the chest, it is a much larger and more prominent part of the body. Does who you are have something to do with your face? Is that why you look in the mirror and see yourself in such a way?

When you can answer that question, or at least attempt to consider it, you will be on your way to developing a new attitude toward what your self really is, and when you come to that realization you will also begin to understand your humanity and how important that is.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 09:09 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;137485 wrote:

Why does one look in the mirror and focus on their face as who they are? Why not the chest, it is a much larger and more prominent part of the body. Does who you are have something to do with your face? Is that why you look in the mirror and see yourself in such a way?


I know what you are getting at, but the face deserves some credit. Faces are our fingerprints, and perhaps our most honest communication device.

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 10:13 PM ----------

Pathfinder;137485 wrote:

Can we agree that in thousands of years of philosophical wit we still do not have the answer and continue to debate the same old same old?


I can't agree. I think that certain philosophers are close enough to the "truth" on this issue that they deserve a cigar. The appearance/reality distinction is a confusion tolerated for its utility. A person can live and die in such confusions, and probably happily enough, despite that famous "unexamined life is not worth living" line.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 01:38 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;137764 wrote:
I can't agree. I think that certain philosophers are close enough to the "truth" on this issue that they deserve a cigar. The appearance/reality distinction is a confusion tolerated for its utility. A person can live and die in such confusions, and probably happily enough, despite that famous "unexamined life is not worth living" line.

How about a cigar for Ortega y Gasset:

"Appearance" is the form that "reality" takes during the act of "perception." This is true of the "perception" of so-called "physical" phenomena, such as sensations, as well as of so-called "mental" phenomena, such as thoughts.

It "appears" to me that this is explains the contrast between "appearance" and "reality".

:flowers:
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 05:37 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;137802 wrote:
How about a cigar for Ortega y Gasset:

"Appearance" is the form that "reality" takes during the act of "perception." This is true of the "perception" of so-called "physical" phenomena, such as sensations, as well as of so-called "mental" phenomena, such as thoughts.

It "appears" to me that this is explains the contrast between "appearance" and "reality".

:flowers:



It appears to me as I gaze into the mirror that I am the most handsome man on the face of the earth. Of course the reality you see when you look at me may have a different conclusion. And also, I, or what I really am, has nothing to do with the facade I see in the mirror. When I put a mask on my face and look in the mirror am I not the same person? How is that possible when I am looking at a different face? Obviously the appearance you see has nothing to do with the reality of who you are. And yet we all recognize each other mainly by our faces. There are other characteristics which those who are familiar with us can recognize like dress, stride, and physical structure for instance, but the details of the face make it easier to eliminate similarities with other people.

And yet, even when disguised somehow, our friends may not recognize us, but we are still who we are, whether they know us or not. Reality is not a matter of appearance. Reality does not take form based upon appearances or perceptions. In my halloween costume the reality is I am still me, no matter how you would perceive it.


Reconstructo,

Exactly what truth have these philosophers gotten close to? I am not familiar with any that have discovered or proven the origin of creation or life. There are many suppositions and opinions, but no absolutes.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 05:50 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;137825 wrote:
It appears to me as I gaze into the mirror that I am the most handsome man on the face of the earth. Of course the reality you see when you look at me may have a different conclusion. And also, I, or what I really am, has nothing to do with the facade I see in the mirror. When I put a mask on my face and look in the mirror am I not the same person? How is that possible when I am looking at a different face? Obviously the appearance you see has nothing to do with the reality of who you are. And yet we all recognize each other mainly by our faces. There are other characteristics which those who are familiar with us can recognize like dress and stride for instance, but the details of the face make it easier to eliminate similarities with other people.

And yet, even when disguised somehow, our friends may not recognize us, but we are still who we are, whether they know us or not. Reality is not a matter of appearance. Reality does not take form based upon appearances or perceptions. In my halloween costume the reality is I am still me, no matter how you would perceive it.


Reconstructo,

Exactly what truth have these philosophers gotten close to? I am not familiar with any that have discovered or proven the origin of creation or life. There are many suppositions and opinions, but no absolutes.


...your halloween costume says everything about you...why should it not ? Smile
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.3 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 11:08:10