If you aren’t a lover of wisdom, fine. Personally, I find that today’s anti-intellectual approach to philosophy is but a continuation of the dumbing down of America.
Here I’ll use the more common place meanings of the term: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy Approached from a different front, your apparent ambivalence results in no clear view of either – materiality nor of philosophy. I’ve pointed to the fallacy of ‘failure to state’ before. Here by not taking a clear stance you are continuing to present that fallacy along with other possibilities too. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#state And now doing an analysis, point by point: 1. I don’t think that we perceive the concept of a material object differently. I think that we both on occasion imagine things to be the things we think they are and that they are but solid matter. I further think that we both know that there is no such thing as ‘solid matter’. All things are made up of smaller and smaller items (i.e. molecules, atoms etc.) and ultimately, energy itself…something that is not matter at all. 2. Approaching life and interaction from a stance of wanting to know more…i.e. loving wisdom…may not always be popular…especially to those who are complacent with their current belief systems. This is true. So, in such situations attempting to go beyond where one currently thinks would produce an apparent failure in communication. What I would ask here (as a Socratic device) is – is either position preferable to the other? If so, why? Oh, and there is absolutely no ‘fast ball’…no ‘splitting of a skull’…except in your mind. Yes, I do recognize it as a rhetorical device. I merely reject the way you use it in discussion let alone in debate or argumentation. 3. In this 3rd paragraph, you say both: you aren’t “knocking” philosophy [and it is good to ‘ponder’ (think about) things ‘once in a while]. You also say that there are times when analysis obscures reality more than it clarifies it. So, we agree that “studying the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence…” is good. However, you seem to wish to not think more than ‘once in a while’, right? Here we would part ways. And, we also agree that ‘analysis obscures reality…’. The only difference I perceive here is that you seem to wish to accept appearances as being reality…now and always. Is this correct? If so, again, we do part ways there. On May 11, 6:53 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > We might perceive the concept of a material object in different ways but we > still experience the impact of a 100 mph fast ball in the same way. > > As to philosophical meaning, I wonder if sometimes philosophy doesn't hinder > communication more than help. While we are busy analyzing our differing > perspectives on matter the fast ball is busy splitting a skull. > > Not that I'm knocking philosophy. I think it's good to stop and ponder once > in a while. But, there are times when analysis obscures reality more than it > clarifies. > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:50 AM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chuck, thanks for your cogent responses. > > > Indeed we do use the terms subjective and objective in entirely > > different ways when it comes to philosophy. Or, perhaps you aren’t > > meaning to be philosophical here? > > > For me, ‘subjective’ does have to do with one’s personal experiences > > and/or thoughts…feelings etc. Yet, when it comes to things ‘physical’, > > (“a material object”), how we as humans perceive such things is based > > upon our thinking …not on what they actually are. While we may > > experience similar results from running into a wall, a wall is made up > > of molecules, atoms and mostly just space. What we experience when > > running into said hypothetical wall is not due to that which most > > consider to be ‘matter’…unless one considers that the resistance we > > experience is NOT from running into something…but, rather, running > > into something that is apparently held together by forces and energy. > > Actually, it is almost 100% space! > > > In any case, to suggest that a ‘table’ exists if there is no human > > being or mind to conceive of such a thing just misses the point. Since > > it is a personal concept, it is subjective as I use the term. > > > On May 10, 11:17 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > By objective I generally mean anything that is a shared common > > experience. > > > For instance, gravity is a shared common experience. My list of people > > who > > > are not physically attracted to the Earth is very short. > > > > Your ability to breath is dependent upon your proximity to the ground due > > to > > > the fact that the Earth's atmosphere gets thinner the higher you go. > > > > Another shared common experience is kinetic energy. Most people who are > > hit > > > with a 100 mph fast ball react in a very similar manner - they drop to > > the > > > ground with a concussion. > > > > Here your health is dependent upon your ability to avoid 100 mph fast > > balls. > > > > Matter is a shared common experience. Running into a brick wall at full > > > speed generally has the same result for anybody who tries it. > > > > See above for dependencies. ;) > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > "All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a > > > > different > > > > way. .." - CB > > > > > Would you mind giving a list of at least a few things that you > > > > consider to be objective? At the outset I have little doubt that we > > > > are dealing with an issue of semantics; however we can continue to > > > > discuss it, no? > > > > My point is that *anything* that is dependent is by definition > > > > subjective. > > > > > On May 4, 1:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a > > different > > > > > way. > > > > > > I think subjective things are dependent in the way we associate them > > with > > > > > each other. Objective things are more physically dependent. > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > To me, what Chuck said about ‘dependence’ is of utmost importance > > > > > > here. All subjective things are dependent. > > > > > > > On May 3, 9:30 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > PSK if at some point someones conciousness dident tell them not > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > selfish then how is it possible that you were ever told not to be > > > > > > > selfish ? > > > > > > > > pol.science kid wrote: > > > > > > > > selfishness is contrary to collective consciousness true..but > > isnt > > > > > > > > that the most real thing about us..i wonder..i wasnt told that > > > > > > > > selfishness is bad...would my conscience strike me...keep me in > > > > > > > > check...because...sometimes...my thoughts...they shock and > > repulse > > > > > > > > me... i loathe myself for having such thoughts..and then i > > > > > > > > wonder...if that is not me...but it is me...it is hard ...to > > know > > > > that > > > > > > > > oyu are what you might condemn in someone else...and so i ask > > > > > > > > often... > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 1:04 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to > > > > > > > > > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations of > > > > marcus > > > > > > > > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics . > > > > > > > > > > gabbydott wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I > > understood > > > > that > > > > > > PSK asked > > > > > > > > > > for individual responses from each of us. > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the > > chance > > > > to > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are > > miserable > > > > due > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what > > does a > > > > > > culture > > > > > > > > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some > > for > > > > > > buying a > > > > > > > > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture > > teaches > > > > them, > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or > > > > challenge > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > > > > thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd > > > > quickly > > > > > > die out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see > > themselves > > > > in > > > > > > the others > > > > > > > > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not > > taken > > > > for > > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > for someone else. My explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to > > my > > > > mind > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does > > the > > > > > > collective > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean > > > > > > exactly...to put > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the > > only > > > > > > phenomena..but > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones > > own > > > > > > person...but is > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self > > > > > > absorbed or self > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in > > any > > > > > > sense...are we > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is > > it > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > more.. i > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > ask...i > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually > > > > changing, > > > > > > evolving > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an > > > > expanded > > > > > > "mind > > > > > > > > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what > > is to > > > > be > > > > > > said about > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking > > be > > > > > > correct by the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising > > the > > > > bar" > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more > > correct > > > > > > thinking of > > > > > > > > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into > > > > thought > > > > > > and mind is > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this not the desired effect? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages > > it > > > > > > ....what is the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> realm > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it > > logic > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of > > employing > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > >> thought...because > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first > > time > > > > the > > > > > > mind will > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it > > > > does > > > > > > know.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. > > Thinking > > > > > > separates, in > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought > > > > process. > > > > > > Thinking > > > > > > > > > > > about > > ... > > read more »
