Your analogy between philosophy and bubble gum, as clever as it is, isn’t clear to me when ‘nutritional value’ is mentioned. No doubt you have a personal meaning to this phrase; however, it is opaque to me. If you wish to expand, that would be great!
Hopefully your question about having ‘a clear view’ on materiality and philosophy is meant to be humor…or at least mere rhetoric. Most people can have a clear view of different things/notions whether they are similar, of the same nature, a subset of the other or countless other qualities that in fact do not hinder having a discriminating mind. As to what you should take a ‘clear stance on’, I’ll answer: Anything you are discussing here…if possible. Perhaps it isn’t possible on occasion. >From the description of the Minds Eye Group: “A Forum to RATIONALLY express your ideas on: Religion, Philosophy, Literature, the Fine Arts, etc…” If you don’t wish to present cogent discussion, OK. I just thought you were implying you had some apparently different views and wished to express them. When the notions contained in #1, (a reference to your first paragraph in a previous post), are followed back to the posts leading up to it one finds that our current discussion started out approaching the terms subjective and objective. And, my first entry into this topic with you was a comment on your use of the term ‘dependence’. I appreciated the way you used it. Sadly, I now see that I have conflated your posts with the creator of this topic, one Chad Moore. In fact, I’ll state unequivocally that his opening salvo and creation of this topic is about as pure a presentation of philosophy, epistemology and ontology as one can have. He started out with notions like: knowledge, the nature of thought, truth, self observation, the nature of self, consciousness and essence. These are areas of interest to me. So, in short and understanding that you are not very interested in such things, on a superficial level, we seem to agree on #1…it is only when one gets into the details…some of which you bring up, that we differ. #2, you misstate my view and position, so little else is to be said here. #3, even though you haven’t responded to my question, it continues to appear that you embrace appearances as being reality. This is fine and you are in a large group who do so. My only criticism of your most recent post is that you again misdirect to something that not only isn’t involved but to something that denigrates my posting and just isn’t my experience. We need not continue the discourse in that my expectation for a different level of engagement was erroneous and founded on a case of misidentification. Sorry. On May 11, 10:48 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I regard philosophy as the equivalent of mental bubble gum. It's > good to chew on but doesn't have a lot of nutritional value. > > As to philosophy and materiality, isn't one a sub-category of the other? How > can I have a clear view of one or the other when there is no either/or > choice? > > Next - exactly what is it that I'm supposed to be taking a clear stance on? > > Finally, your points... (Jeesh, I hate communicating this way. It sucks to > have to paraphrase everything I'm referring to.) > > 1. There is such a thing as solid matter. It has to do with language and > symbology. When a concept is given a name it is within a subjective context. > For instance, there is no such thing as the color red. That word actually > refers to light waves that span the range from about 650 nm to 700 nm. The > meaning of the word 'red' is a range of light waves. The same goes with the > term 'solid matter'. It is understood that matter takes on a different > meaning at the subatomic level. However, when you are talking about a > baseball or some other object referring to hadrons, leptons, bosons, > electromagnetic force, etc. simply obfuscate the meaning of the > communication. > > 2. If you don't believe that the skull is real or the baseball is real then > it's true that the impact of the ball is not real either. I prefer to > believe otherwise. > > 3. As I said, philosophy has it's place. It's ok to ponder the meaning of > life and the universe in general. However, when you are punching out parts > on an assembly line or trying to rebuild a motor it is rarely beneficial to > be wandering around in your mind pondering belly button lint. That's a good > way to lose a finger - assuming that you believe fingers exist. > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:58 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
