As some of you know, I think highly of Richard Rorty, and more recently Hegel. Both are smashers of dichotomies. For instance, the mind/matter dichotomy, or the self/other dichotomy.

I think that the mind/matter dichotomy is socially usefully but logically absurd, or at least questionable. It's the same with self/other. And even as Nietzsche might say with good/evil.

Distinctions like mind, matter, self, other, good, evil, etc. are imposed by the mind. But the "mind" is also imposed by the "mind" (?) I see now how much Hegel there is in Rorty, and Rorty made this joke about Hegel waiting at the end of the road for us that got me reading him in the first place. I think the dialectic is the real deal, from Plato on. We argue with others or ourselves and slowly make progress. And smash dualities that muddy the water, even as we live by these same questionable dualities.

Here's another duality: pragmatism/metaphysics.

Anyone else think that most of our dichotomies are confusions, no matter how useful?
Dichotomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't help but prefer the more aesthetic/"spiritual" aspects of philosophy.

Wittgenstein's distinction in the TLP really clicked for me lately. He cleaves the disciplines of psychology and philosophy. He opts out of a Rorty-like pragmatism. And yet the crystalline restraint of the TLP kicks open the door for exactly such types as Rorty, which is why Rorty assimilates him.

Pragmatism is just the intellectual's version of what we are all always doing in any case. The sophist is worldly. The philosopher is as irrelevant, in many cases, as Yves Klein is to someone who wants to look at comic books. (Nothing wrong with comic books.)

We can dwell on the useful part of the confusions or on their logical flaws, according to which role we want to play. My vote is that philosophers should stick to philosophy, as pragmatism is telling the world nothing really that it doesn't already live by. And yet a Rorty-style pragmatism is beautifully and completely developed, which makes it artistic even, and a pleasure to contemplate. As an apsect of philosophy becomes useful, it usually becomes an empirical science, which is great. Biology, psychology, physics, etc. And these empirical sciences have their specialized philosophies, which is also great.

I can't help but prefer the more aesthetic/"spiritual" aspects of philosophy.

8. Again, the mind having observed that in the particular extensions perceived by sense there is something common and alike in all, and some other things peculiar, as this or that figure or magnitude, which distinguish them one from another; it considers apart or singles out by itself that which is common, making thereof a most abstract idea of extension, which is neither line, surface, nor solid, nor has any figure or magnitude, but is an idea entirely prescinded from all these.


9. And as the mind frames to itself abstract ideas of qualities or modes, so does it, by the same precision or mental separation, attain abstract ideas of the more compounded beings which include several coexistent qualities.
For example, the mind having observed that Peter, James, and John resemble each other in certain common agreements of shape and other qualities, leaves out of the complex or compounded idea it has of Peter, James, and any other particular man, that which is peculiar to each, retaining only what is common to all, and so makes an abstract idea wherein all the particulars equally partake- abstracting entirely from and cutting off all those circumstances and differences which might determine it to any particular existence.
And after this manner it is said we come by the abstract idea of man, or, if you please, humanity, or human nature; wherein it is true there is included colour, because there is no man but has some colour, but then it can be neither white, nor black, nor any particular colour, because there is no one particular colour wherein all men partake.
So likewise there is included stature, but then it is neither tall stature, nor low stature, nor yet middle stature, but something abstracted from all these. And so of the rest.
Moreover, their being a great variety of other creatures that partake in some parts, but not all, of the complex idea of man, the mind, leaving out those parts which are peculiar to men, and retaining those only which are common to all the living creatures, frames the idea of animal, which abstracts not only from all particular men, but also all birds, beasts, fishes, and insects.
[Unquote]

The aesthetics on the other hand, enable one to get back to a sense of what reality or the particular is.

I get confused all the time, does this then mean i should confuse others even if i have found a way to unconfuse, should i let them unconfuse themselves?
If i confuse others should i unconfuse them also?
Or is what you are saying is it best to confuse and let them find the unconfusion, conclusion?

(What is it, de-confuse, un-confuse, dis-confuse? language meltdown)

It seems to me that the more practical philosophy becomes, the less philosophical it becomes.

It seems to me that the more practical philosophy becomes, the less philosophical it becomes. So many debates on this forum are so satisfactorily answered by pragmatism, that the questions lose their attraction. For instance: what is truth? Well, in a practical sense we know well enough. And as far as living practical language goes, we are never going to precisely define this X, or any other flexible piece of logos.

If we want hard truth, we have to invent precise systems like math, formal logic, music scores, etc. This is the attraction of art, algebra, chess, sudoku, Euclid, etc. A certain part of the brain craves these sharp right angles, to speak metaphorically, as most of our living language is blurry and curved, whether we like it or not.
Just thoughts....

you're actually skating around the edges of non-dualism again. These dichotomies you are thinking of are also dualisms, and dilemmas. But it is deceptive to believe that the tensions in these ways of thinking and being can be dispelled by merely spelling it out like this. They run very deep in the way we create our worlds - they are indeed to woof and warp of our very structure of thinking and can't just be wished away. (After all 'away' is just another dichotomy to 'here'.)

Can you give an example of what you get confused about? If you get confused on how to drive to your local grocery store, for example, I don't think you should spread the confusion around. But if you get confused about something that isn't on all fours, as they say, then that might be a different story. (What is "on all fours"? Something that is taken as sound knowledge. A good enough definition for now.)

Take your pick, but mostly about people is where i find confusion, more so my place amongst them, and as we cant survive without other people when ever i am close to them i become confused. I thought ignorantly that by coming here i could be closer to expression of the writing variety something i am not confused about but then i started to see beyond the words and expressions to the person and that is where i became confused all over again.
If i was given a set of rules and expressions that told me how to interpret and interact with others i would understand, rules do not confuse me, but people live outside of rules, we are still to this day making up ways of dealing and interacting with each other hence the confussion.
Perhaps if i were given the tools rules of understanding myself i would not be as confused.
People are everything, everything confuses me.

Does your confusion torment you?

I don't know about him but it certainly torments others.:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 09:46 AM ----------

R- I suppose I was trying to be fashionably obtuse in my response. To try and say it straight out - I see the point you are making, and believe there is a lot of truth in it. I think the non-reflective, non-self-aware mind will generally not be conscious of the way the very process of thinking proceeds by separating ideas and grouping them around various kinds of value-judgements. This is typically manifest in the idea of black-and-white thinking - us and them, self and other, good and evil, and so on.

To try and see past these dichotomies does not mean simply ignoring differences however. I suppose it means, being able to take a large enough view to understand each viewpoint, while understanding them as part of a larger whole.

Which is all nicely summarized in the Ying Yang icon, I would think.

Yes. I'm still waiting for it to be worth it, but know it must be worth much.


I hope i do not torment others, but maybe hope i confuse you a little.:bigsmile:

Yes. I'm still waiting for it to be worth it, but know it must be worth much. It wont be for nothing, it cant be.

I wish I could help get rid of some of your confusion.

And I think I know what you mean about it not being bad to share some of it with those who are rather certain about it all. (To expand a bit on what you wrote.)

But to do that you'll need some confidence. Where will you get it if you are uncertain about people and, as you say, people are everything?

The only answer seems to me to be to get certain about some basic things about people. Focus.

Even if you're only sure about one thing about the people you meet, that's a foundation.

If you can build on that, then it would be worth it.

Then it won't be for nothing. (Please forgive my presumption if this doesn't resonate with you.)

I at least understand fear and it is not easy to understand, but one thing is clear, stay away from that which you are afraid of that is rational fear.
(then we go into irrationality which i cant bore you with)
I think it complete poo to face all your fears, somethings are fearful because you ought stay well away from them.
You know it is irrational if you need that which is what you fear, NEED.