flamingjimmy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I'm just saying to keep an open mind, that is all. You get funnier all the time. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 You get funnier all the time. Keep up the good work. I think you are beginning to open that little trap door, just a little bit? Least-ways I hopes so. Anyway I will leave you to the experts, they put it so much better than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I think you are beginning to open that little trap door, just a little bit? Least-ways I hopes so. My mind is already open, that is why I'm not a christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 My mind is already open, that is why I'm not a christian. Naughty, naughty, slap your hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I have no idea what my thought process was as a baby. I do not remember becoming self aware. How about you just come out and tell me in what way metaphysics is required to get past solipsism? I have explained several times. Put simply you can't prove a physical reality by reference to its parts. All that can show is consistency. To prove external reality in the way we all understand it requires something outside that system, something beyond the physical, something metaphysical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 You do realise you have contradicted yourself, in that you both imply you have no "certain ideological pov" and yet at the same time go on to say "truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge as opposed to the falsehood of personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics" which is an ideological viewpoint? And I knew that you were going to say something pretty much along those lines. I entirely disagree with your premise. There is "truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge" which is the very antithesis of a political ideology I mentioned in the post you referenced, whereas "personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics" is the very basis of all political/religious ideological systems and the fundamental reason why there are so many wars and so much suffering within these competing ideological systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I have explained several times. Put simply you can't prove a physical reality by reference to its parts. All that can show is consistency. To prove external reality in the way we all understand it requires something outside that system, something beyond the physical, something metaphysical. What you are saying is true, but I'm happy to believe in an external reality without proof. Because proof is impossible, and the alternative is solipsism. So I don't need any metaphysics. Besides, by that reasoning you can't talk about metaphysics without requiring something outside of that system, something beyond beyond the physical, and then you fall into infinite regression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What you are saying is true, but I'm happy to believe in an external reality without proof. Because proof is impossible, and the alternative is solipsism. So I don't need any metaphysics. Even with your pragmatic answer the question itself is still a metaphysical question, questioning as it does the relationship between concepts like "I" and an external reality. Besides, by that reasoning you can't talk about metaphysics without requiring something outside of that system, something beyond beyond the physical, and then you fall into infinite regression. There is no science of the metaphysical, you are applying concepts outside their domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 And I knew that you were going to say something pretty much along those lines. I entirely disagree with your premise. There is "truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge" which is the very antithesis of a political ideology I mentioned in the post you referenced, whereas "personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics" is the very basis of all political/religious ideological systems and the fundamental reason why there are so many wars and so much suffering within these competing ideological systems. "truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge" does not exclude the possibility of knowledge through other means than the Empirical, indeed by usage of the word "revealed" indicates it is referencing more than Empirical Knowledge and is including "revealed knowledge". It simply isn't the anti-thesis of "personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics", it includes it. As others have said conflicts in the real world come from power struggles between competing societies. Religion is only relevant in that to some extent it can define boundaries between societies that can be exploited to cause problems, just as concepts like monarchy or property rights can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 It's a question of left v right brain thinking.* Left: linear, logical, specific, verbal, measurable, analytical, literal thinking Right: abstract, general, spatial, intuitive, 'whole'istic, creative, sensual, lateral thinking One of the problems with right brain functions is that by definition they are not easily transmissible in wordy language, which is why descriptions and discussions of the arts, spiritual matters, etc, are often criticised as sounding pseudish or pretentious. They don't suit wordy analysis but have to be grasped and directly experienced to be understood properly. It isn't a case of either/or, both modes are essential and the optimum ideal is for each mode to inform and complement the other. Some live only within one type of thinking and distain the other, which is a narrow, unhealthy and impoverished way to live whichever is the domineering mode. Another way of looking at them is in terms of traditionally masculine or feminine traits. It is interesting that the predominant hyper-rationalist stance that the West has taken pride in still frequently distains and devalues the feminine traits just as the church did, although that has been changing in the last half century. The most effective approach could be said to be androgynous. In terms of religious or philosophical arenas, the left side could be termed the 'fundamentalist' mode and the right side the 'mystical' mode. The wisest course is to find the co-operative balance between the two styles. Alan Watts summed up the difference between the two sides as being like Prickles and Goo. Being rigidly committed to one mode of thinking and against the other is not ultimately helpful. For best results aim for Prickly Goo. * I don't know if they are always literally located in the left or right hemispheres, but it's become a term of general use to compare the two kinds of functions. I meant to welcome your contribution to the debate earlier but my phone wouldn't quote all the words in one go and it would seem a shame to abbreviate it. It is a slightly different way of explaining what I am trying to say and said very eloquently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.