Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Thanks, but it's about as simple as matters, discussed by philosophers, get. So, work on it, or read up. As far as I can see, you dont lack the intellectual capacity to understand this.You've had several elucidations over, at least, a three year period, on at least three sites. Apparently you have psychological reasons for deluding yourself about determinism, that make your stance irrational. I'm not your shrink, so, it's up to you to deal with it yourself.
You really have no argument.
On your ******* bike with this bullshit. You have been pointed to all relevant sources and consistently provided with piss simple arguments for years. There are two possibilities:
1) you are too thick to get this
2) you are self deluded.
The choice is yours.
Do I really have to choose?
You could choose not to choose, depends on the choice: YouTube - Diamanda Galas - You Must Be Certain Of The Devil
You could choose not to choose, depends on the choice: YouTube - Diamanda Galas - You Must Be Certain Of The Devil
Is that really you when you are not philosophizing?
I find 'spirit' not a very satisfactory word. This is maybe because the English language is so bereft in this matter, in which Sanskrit has a richer lexicon. Anyway the whole idea of 'spirit' still seems to be some incorporeal substance, something which is spread out through space. This is a very poor representation. I much prefer 'gist' which is like 'geist' or 'meaning'. 'Gist' is like 'the meaning of something' or 'the spirit of Christmas' or 'a way of being'. This is much closer to the meaning I seek than the idea of spirit as some kind of ethereal vapour, substance, or ghostly thing.
It is a way of being, not a kind of thing. It is the spirit of compassion, the spirit of love, the spirit of giving. It is only disclosed by these qualities, not by imagining what it must be like.
Actually it is not confusion, it is ignorance. It has come from believing that 'Spirit'; or 'The One'; or 'The Ground of Being'; can be designated and spoken of as something. Whereas, 'the way that can be spoken is not the real way', says Lao Tze. They say 'familiarity breeds contempt'; never more so than here. This is also why Socrates was wise to say that he knew nothing. Ignorance in this matter, surpasses knowledge in all others.
As for materialism and naturalism: 'naturalism' is a more polite expression, but it really amounts to the same. But even so, it still conveys the blatant falsehood that 'nature' is something we really understand. We certainly understand many things about nature, but nature has a great deal in reserve. The things which seem so trifling to her, are completely baffling to us. We assume we know her, at our peril.
Energy is the capacity to do work, though, whereas this is also 'knowing'. It is like 'knowing energy', if there were such a thing.
I think you may be looking out to the word 'essence';....... would it than be correct to say that your spirit, is:
Like in the case of soul - is the 'essence' or 'spirit', which is seperate from the body and mind. The spiritualist say that 'Soul is the principle of life'; so also you seem to suggest that 1) your 'spirit' is the principle of universal matter. Or as i gather, you are also saying 2) that the law of a becoming 'object' constitutes the spirit....
.....The Energy i was talking about is the all pervading energy that seems to exists, and as told by various accounts, and as can be deducted by reason, in all manifest forms, objects, corporeal or non corporeal. This Energy is always in the capital.
Many people have beliefs about metaphysical issues, and spiritual beliefs, but frequently, or nearly always, they are not effective. They don't really make any difference to them and don't refer to anything real. I am wishing to avoid that tendency.
Aha. That energy you refer to, I think, is Chi. I see what you mean now.
I am trying to navigate the middle path between worldly skepticism, which says that only material objects and relations exist, and unworldly metaphysics, which says that only the ideal realms are real. Within this endeavour, metaphysics has a place, but if it becomes the ground for argument, then it looses its usefulness. I can see how that argument of Liebniz could be interminable.
Many people have beliefs about metaphysical issues, and spiritual beliefs, but frequently, or nearly always, they are not effective. They don't really make any difference to them and don't refer to anything real. I am wishing to avoid that tendency.
And it is not actually a metaphysical idea because it does not propose the idea of 'substance'. Material things all exist, but they only exist by virtue of being expressions of the law.
Aha. That energy you refer to, I think, is Chi. I see what you mean now.
God is not 'out there'. He is in Bonhoeffer's words ' the "beyond" in the midst of our life', a depth of reality reached 'not on the borders of life but at its centre', not by any flight of the alone to the alone, but, in Kierkegaard's fine phrase, by ' a deeper immersion in existence'. For the word 'God' denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground and meaning of all our existence. ...Tillich warns us that to make the necessary transposition, 'you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself.'
The modern skeptic basically has a naturalistic outlook. This means she is skeptical about any claims for which scientific or empirical evidence cannot be forthcoming.
is essentially a doctrine of salvation, and that all its philosophical statements are subordinate to its soteriological purpose. This implies, not only that many philosophical problems are dismissed as idle speculations, but that each and every proposition must be considered in reference to its spiritual intention and as a formulation of meditational experiences acquired in the course of the process of winning salvation.
There is an idea that I am trying to spell out which I think is important. But before I go down the track of trying to fully elaborate it, I would like to present a brief summary of it, to see if it stands up to criticism.
Reality and Existence
This has got to do with the difference between between reality and existence. I am working on the idea that what is real, and what exists, are not the same. I already know this is controversial and unconventional but I will try and provide a bit more detail at this point to see if it has any future.
What I propose exists, consists mainly of objects. Objects are the kinds of things we see, from the subatomic, to the galactic, in size. (I won't list them:bigsmile:)
Now I would like to say that this category of items called 'objects' comprises 'everything that exists', or every material thing. (I suppose this leaves out a very important particular, which is energy. I will put that aside for now.)
In this definition, all existing things are compounded, or made of parts (leaving aside the constituents of atoms e.g. quarks, leptons etc). Objects are also temporal - they begin and end in time.
Now I want to consider the idea of number. I regard numbers as being a type of universal. In other words, here I am proposing some kind of mathematical realism. I believe numbers are real, although they are not real in the same way as objects are. Some refer to them as abstract objects, but I don't think there is any such thing, for reasons that will become clear. Universals also include the various attributes of an object such as roundness, red-ness and so on, as per the traditional description.
Now I don't regard numbers as existing things. They are real, but they don't exist. Instead, mathematical relations, universals, and the like, are inherent, or implicit, in the way things exist. The universe exhibits tendencies to behave a certain way - in other words, it is lawful. Lawfulness consists of predictable regularities, the tendency for certain things to happen. The Pythagorean insight that 'all is number' is profoundly true, because number describes the ratio of all things to each other.
What I am considering is that the relationship between existing things - the lawful manner in which things exists - is of a different order of reality to the things themselves. In this depiction, the material objects are given form by the lawful operations of the Universe which are of course implicit everywhere.
But putting it like this, you can see that 'the lawfulness of the universe' cannot be objectified. It is not anything in particular - it is simply the way that everything is related or comes to exist. In other words, in itself it does not exist. It is not any particular thing. Nevertheless, without it, nothing would exist. Furthermore, it underlies not only all material particulars, but also the way that the mind itself works. So again, it cannot be objectified or considered.
Universal Mind
Now in some respects, this could be understood as a theistic idea, but really it is much more like Neo-platonism. In this understanding, 'the universal mind' can be understood as the origin of this order, but this too is not something that exists. There really is no universal mind. But wherever mind exists, there is a certain way that it operates. It will always develop along certain lines and operate in certain ways, in the same way that planets go around in elliptical orbits, and so on. In other words, it is lawful. So in this way there is a universal mind - not because this or that mind is universal, but because wherever mind appears, it always operates this way. The tendecy is real, but it does not exist until it is 'instantiated' in the specific instance of this or that mind.
It seems to me that a lot of the philosophical difficulties we have in relation to the idea of 'the lawfulness of the universe' come from trying to imagine 'where' these laws exist. We can't imagine what such a 'place' would be like, of course. A lot of the problem with Platonism is wondering 'where' the forms exist. Now in this understanding, that problem is solved by the answer that 'they don't exist anywhere. They are simply the way in which things tend to exist. So they are kind of implicit within the fabric of the cosmos, but can never (of course) be apprehended'.
Now I realise this is very sketchy. It is an idea I have been working on since I joined the Forum. And it is not actually a metaphysical idea because it does not propose the idea of 'substance'. Material things all exist, but they only exist by virtue of being expressions of the law. So I will throw it out there and watch what comes back.
thanks.
I can't help but be interested in Western idealism as it is represented in Western philosophy,
particularly when Buddhist pragmatism is used to counter-balance its speculative tendencies.
So there are kinds of interesting ways to synthesize these great traditions,
to which end I am reading about mathematical realism and practicing meditation. Which is what gave rise to this thread.:bigsmile:
How is any of this supposed to be a "Non-metaphysical theory"?
It simply doesn't matter that someone construes "existence" and "the real" differently. That, in itself, is a metaphysical theory. And whichever things you think have existence like physical objects, and which things like numbers and concepts only have a kind of lesser "subsistence," but nonexistent "realness,"--all of this is still a very much a substantive metaphysical theory.
(1) You are telling us which things you think really exist, and which things you think don't.
(2) You divide ontology right down the center, thus giving "existence" two interpretations--"really existent" and "non-existent, but real existence".
(...which is contradictory from the start anyway.)
The western philosopher, Meinong, fits right in here....you might check him out.
Whatever the scenario, nevertheless, this is a Robust Metaphysical Theory whether you like it or not.
What jeepers "really" should be saying is that it is a "non-Aristotelian theory," because it does not involve the concept of "substance." As you say, it's still metaphysics.
:flowers: