|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
#5303619 - 02/15/06 03:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
By Joseph Rowlands - The Free Radical magazine.
Imagine you're discussing ethics with a friend. You bring up the fact that altruism, the ethics of self-sacrifice, is the current dominant ethical system. Your friend is unconvinced though. He insists he's never met an altruist. Sure, people might say you're supposed to help other people all the time, but none of them practice it consistently. He can point to the most altruistic person you two know and show that he's constantly acting for himself and not others.
The counter-argument being made is that nobody practices it consistently. It seems plausible at first. If they aren't really practicing what they're preaching, there's nothing really wrong with believing it, is there? Doesn't their common sense override their mistakes? And since they're inconsistent with it, we can't really predict how they'll behave, making it a poor tool of analysis. Doesn't the inconsistency prove they don't really believe it?
The first thing to note is that these bad philosophies cannot be practiced consistently. You can't be a dedicated altruist and live very long. You can't be a committed rationalist, believing deduction is the only means of knowledge, because you'd have no knowledge about the real world. You can't be a dedicated empiricist, believing that theory and abstractions are useless, because facts without integration would appear random and chaotic. You can't be a consistent determinist, believing that choice is an illusion, or you'd sit passively while death slowly took you. The big point here is that inconsistency is not optional. It's a necessary by-product of an impracticable philosophy.
So they don't practice it consistently. Is there anything else we can learn from the fact that they hold bad philosophical premises? There are a few things. The first is that their explicit philosophy is usually going to be their guide whenever they consciously try to work something out. An altruist making a major life decision will think about what is right and wrong based on that altruistic premise. It's only during a tough decision that a person focuses on his method of choosing. It's only at that point that his conscious convictions will dominate and his implicit philosophy (common sense) will be pushed to the background. In other words, that bad philosophy will be most dominant when it can do the most damage.
How does it affect some of the other philosophical beliefs? Rationalism and empiricism are both epistemological. They both deal with what we consider proper knowledge. When are we most likely to consider our standards of knowledge? One example is when we try to prove something. A rationalist will want a strong logical deduction in order to be satisfied. An empiricists will want to "see it to believe it." These views will be brought into conscious consideration when someone has a strong desire to be sure about something. Again, it's when the philosophical premises are deemed most important that they have the biggest effects.
Determinism also has an interesting affect. In day-to-day decisions, it can't be taken seriously. When is there a need to pay attention to that particular philosophical premise? One case is the need for moral responsibility or judgment. Moral issues are dependent on man's ability to choose his actions, and determinism negates that. So it is a convenient excuse for any morally dubious actions. That moral excuse works not only to brush off your own moral failings, but to excuse the actions of other people. Justice can be tough to practice, and this lets you off the hook.
I've so far focused on how a bad philosophical belief is likely to be practiced. There is another major side-effect though. It's the unseen effect of a bad philosophical premise. The belief in a false idea precludes you from understanding and adopting a correct idea. You are blinded from the truth, and that can't help but affect your life.
Let's take the case of altruism. By accepting it as a moral ideal, you end up rejecting or ignoring your own rational self-interest. It's not that you'll act against it consistently, but that you won't properly identify it. That's why a dichotomy between helping others (altruism) and stomping on others to get whatever you want (the conventional view of selfishness) is possible. It's why people can say things like "as long as it makes him happy" as if anything a person wants to do is also good for him. The focus on altruism blinds people to a rational ethics in their day-to-day lives, leaving them without an explicit standard to judge their actions by.
We can review other philosophical premises in the same light. Rationalism doesn't really blind a person to the empirical data or facts. A rationalist can't function without these. What it does is blind them to a cognitive standard they can use to evaluate the empirical data. If deduction is all they focus on, they won't have a good idea of the rules of induction. That also limits their ability to form new principles based on empirical data, or to view specific events in all of their context. It's not that they won't do these things, but they'll be hindered in the process by not having an explicit theory of how to do it.
Similarly, empiricism doesn't mean you won't have theories or think in abstractions. It just blinds you to a rational method of doing either of these. Dismissing the validity of abstract theory only prevents you from practicing it in a consistent, rational manner. You may ignore the principles of logic, for instance, because they're "just theory." But in the end that can only limit your potential.
And finally, determinism doesn't mean that you won't make choices. It means that you'll have a ready excuse not to. Determinism favors passivity or reaction to purposeful action. Why go through the effort of doing something difficult if choice is an illusion? Sit around and be lazy. You have no choice anyway.
So bad philosophy has a number of effects, even though it isn't practiced consistently. We don't expect it to be practiced consistently. But we've seen that when it really matters, your philosophical views become important and bad philosophy will impact your life. We've also shown that the more frequent problems come from the unseen effects of a bad philosophical view. What you miss is as important as what you mistakenly believe.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
You can't be a dedicated altruist and live very long.
this isn't necessarily true. i think you're taking altruism to the extreme, as if it means you should allow yourself to freeze to death so your friend can have 6 blankets, rather than take one yourself and leave him the other five. atruism doesn't mean you neglect caring for your body, in fact letting yourself die would not always be the altruistic thing. for instance on an airplane they always tell you to put your own oxygen mask before assisting anyone else. this is bcause if you pass out before you put your oxygen mask on then everyone dies. but if you save yourself first, you then make yourself available to help several other people. so keeping yourself alive is not in violation of altrusistic principles, even if it means that at time you must ration food or money for yourself that could potentially go to someone else. you have to consider the larger picture.
Edited by Deviate (02/15/06 04:11 PM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Here's how I see it. We adopt philosophies because specific ones help us to reach specific goals. They work to achieve the goal when properly applied.
In the case of consistency, the goal is predictable outcomes that provide a sense of safety and security. In a child rearing philosophy for example, consistent follow through with rule enforcement will provide the goal of raising an obedient child who learns, you mean what you say, and in turn, including things like consistent schedules, they are provided with a predictable reality that offers them a sense of safety and security. They know what to expect is coming next.
However, this reality created for them is an illusion to that of nature itself. There is no consistency to it. It rains for three weeks straight and is dry for 3 months and then, who knows. What was once a river is now a dry canyon and what was once a jungle teaming with tigers is a desert.
There is nothing even consistent with human reproduction. There is no cookie cutter expectant parents can count on. It may be a boy, or girl, have two heads, 6 fingers, a hole in its heart.
Though I use philosophies that deal with consistencies to achieve goals, because they work, I do not confuse the desired realities I can craft (manipulate) with them, with the true nature of things itself.
All philosophies the way I see them are just ways to manipulate reality to your personal suiting.
If you want to get really real and aligned with THE TRUTH of natural existence, you have to throw it call to the wind and let free choice and the natural course of cause and effect do its thing.
Who is ready to live like that with the only rule and law being that of what nature enforces upon us itself-no man made manipulations added it to it?
There are many reasons to adopt philosophical approaches to life and to follow their rules, however, I wouldn't confuse any of them with bearing the natural truth of existence.
The only thing any of them do is bring you to their specified goal and their rules will insure it as long as they are enforced because they do not allow for anything else to fit within them.
Nature is inconsistent. Just like with the magnetic poles of the planet, we've come to learn they have shifted, yet we don't know when it will again, if it will again or what to expect fully if it were to happen again.
No creature of the wild knows when they are going to be stalked and pounced on next or by what. Can anyone tell me how much rain my town will get next year , on what days and for how long so I can start planning out door events early? 
A part of learning how to deal, adapt and cope with the truth of the real world and existance is learning to deal with natural inconsistencies. Any philosophy that tries to control nature is creating a false (unnatural) reality.
Not saying its wrong or bad to do that if you have a goal to meet. The above author was trying to say that consistency is some how in alignment with truth, I ask, what truth? Man made and man enforced or nature made and nature enforced? There's a difference.
Any philosophy that deals with the truth of inconsistencies is closer to natural true reality. The further you stray from that, the further you move into a manipulated man made reality.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Deviate]
#5303774 - 02/15/06 04:41 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
this isn't necessarily true. i think you're taking altruism to the extreme, as if it means you should allow yourself to freeze to death so your friend can have 6 blankets, rather than take one yourself and leave him the other five.
That would be a rather extreme example, indeed. But in reality dedicated and consistent altruism is an extreme, which is why not many people in their right mind will ever carry out such a thing - not for long, and not with 100% consistency - that is the point here. By altruism, we don't mean the general benevolence we all partake in here and there, rather we are talking about the collectivist code of ethic which holds that the welfare of others is the standard of good.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
No two sunsets are ever the same in color or clouds arranged in the sky from day to day or blades of grass and bugs in the lawn from day to day.
Nature is inconsistent and its the real deal. How can inconsistent philosophy be a bad thing when inconsistency is aligned with the truth of natural law and order? Consistent philosophy is the phony creating false realities IMHO.

.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Nature is inconsistent. Just like with the magnetic poles of the planet, we've come to learn they have shifted, yet we don't know when it will again, if it will again or what to expect fully if it were to happen again.
Nature is consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. In fact, I'd say nature is more consistent than it is inconsistent.
If you want to get really real and aligned with THE TRUTH of natural existence, you have to throw it call to the wind and let free choice and the natural course of cause and effect do its thing.
Throw what to the call of the wind and let random chance take control? My life? My goals? Uh no. To be honest, I have done basically just that - and it was a very expensive mistake, and one I'll never make again. I'll take control and responsibility, thank you.
The above author was trying to say that consistency is some how in alignment with truth, I ask, what truth? .
Truth of reality-correspondence. If a philosophy is faulty to the extent that one cannot honestly practice it consistently if they tried, then it is precisely this which it lacks.
Any philosophy that deals with the truth of inconsistencies is closer to natural true reality. The further you stray from that, the further you move into a manipulated man made reality.
Actually, all philosophies remain on the normative level. They derive from the cognitive. And again, your attempt to use illustrate nature as entirely inconsistent - or even mostly inconsistent, is rather unjustified.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
No two sunsets are ever the same in color or clouds arranged in the sky from day to day or blades of grass and bugs in the lawn from day to day.
Nature is inconsistent and its the real deal.
Sunsets occur everyday, as do sunrises. Day and night occurs consistently. The Law of Identity - a fundamental law of existence, is utmost consistent. The fibonacci sequence is consistent in nature. Hell, existence itself is consistent. The molecular structure of existents are consistent. The manner in which light creates the effect of color, is consistent. Ultimately, all percieved inconsistencies, are built upon consistencies.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Nature is consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. In fact, I'd say nature is more consistent than it is inconsistent.
I don't know about that. The rotation of the planet around the sun is pretty consistent and the tilts and gravity are (except for in anomaly zones like the Oregon vortex). I can grab thousands of inconsistent examples off the top of my head. Consistent ones I think are the few and they are enforced by natural laws.
Quote:
Throw what to the call of the wind and let random chance take control? My life? My goals? Uh no. To be honest, I have done basically just that - and it was a very expensive mistake, and one I'll never make again. I'll take control and responsibility, thank you.
I agree on that which is why I asked, who is ready to live by giving up predictable control or crafting ability over their realities? Not me which is why I use philosophical approaches too. I was just making it clear that it doesn't mean what ever we are doing is creating something truly natural. Just like the Tae Kwon Do practice I do is reprogramming my natural self defensive mechanism to be more effective. Only through repetition will unnatural moves become natural. That new nature was still manipulated though and I don't kid myself about it. Sounds like you realize the difference too. I just wanted to add that for any reader who didn't consider or realize it already.
Quote:
Truth of reality-correspondence. If a philosophy is faulty to the extent that one cannot honestly practice it consistently if they tried, then it is precisely this which it lacks.
True that. If it is that far from being applicable then, yes, it's useless. Doesn't that go without saying? It won't take someone long to figure out and realize that trying to make a bed with a bulldozer isn't an effective method for accomplishing that goal.
Quote:
Actually, all philosophies remain on the normative level. They derive from the cognitive. And again, your attempt to use illustrate nature as entirely inconsistent - or even mostly inconsistent, is rather unjustified.
Its not unjustified, depending on the goal any are being used for. If one uses say, objective philosophy as a means to determine the natural truth of existent reality by measure of what is consistent and repeatable then, it sucks at achieving that goal. No two bushes of the same species even grow the same or pop up in predictable places. Birds can carry seeds for miles and drop then any which where and who knows which will take and grow or when?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
I don't know about that. The rotation of the planet around the sun is pretty consistent and the tilts and gravity are (except for in anomaly zones like the Oregon vortex). I can grab thousands of inconsistent examples off the top of my head. Consistent ones I think are the few and they are enforced by natural laws.
Upon further thought, I would have to say that, at the very least, there are just as many consistences as there are inconsistencies, for the simple fact that for any inconsistency one finds, there are always consistencies behind it.
And I just now realized that you caught me off guard there, and sucked me into your little black witch voodoo magic, missus. We're talking about two entirely different consistencies here. You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion.
So the fact is, by being consistent, it isn't as if we are furthering ourselves from nature - rather the opposite. The Law of Identity fundamentally governs all reasoning and logic and the Law of Identity isn't something man arbitrarily created - rather, it is an direct, verifiable observation based in reality, read: in nature, read: in existence itself.
This is why an inconsistent philosophy is "bad" - because it conflicts with nature - not because nature itself is bad ["good" or "bad" doesn't apply to the metaphysically given].
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Upon further thought, I would have to say that, at the very least, there are just as many consistences as there are inconsistencies, for the simple fact that for any inconsistency one finds, there are always consistencies behind it.
And one finds inconsistencies behind those consistencies. Nature contradicts itself. Any philosophy not in recognition of that is lying to itself about the inconsistent/consistent contradictory/dictorial nature of reality and existence.
Quote:
And I just now realized that you caught me off guard there, and sucked me into your little black witch voodoo magic, missus. We're talking about two entirely different consistencies here. You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion.
The bolded part is funny Skorp. Why would you even need to be on guard and from what? I can't believe you even said that. I pegged you as a rational and logical scientific thinking type, not someone who lives in fears of superstitions.
Did you or did you not say your personal philosophy allows you greater control over your life, opposed to an approach that assumes zero control? It doesn't matter if you are working with natural laws to gain control over your reality. What do you think the spooky dark arts do? Work with laws that don't exist? If they did, they would be highly ineffective, don't ya think? Sort of like using a bull dozer to make a bed. The difference between white and black magic would be intent of use of natural laws, sort of like how one uses free will to choose to look out for their own well being first. *cough Ayn Rand cough*
That would be an example of black magic use where as white magic looks out for the well being of all involved and often puts its own well being at risk to help others, like those running the under ground railroad.
Black magic hoodoo voodoo scientists manipulate seed genetics to create unnatural hybrid flowers and seeds guaranteed to bloom.
That would be working against the laws of nature in that, they are manipulating the seeds go against their true grain yet, working within natural laws to get them to work.
If you want to put a dark sinister aspect on humans doing that, then go right ahead. If one can get a manipulation of nature to take hold, then, it must be working with a natural law built into place as well.
Quote:
So the fact is, by being consistent, it isn't as if we are furthering ourselves from nature - rather the opposite. The Law of Identity fundamentally governs all reasoning and logic and the Law of Identity isn't something man arbitrarily created - rather, it is an direct, verifiable observation based in reality, read: in nature, read: in existence itself. This is why an inconsistent philosophy is "bad" - because it conflicts with nature - not because nature itself is bad ["good" or "bad" doesn't apply to the metaphysically given].
Exactly. So why did you label such manipulations of what is natural to become something else natural in accordance with the fundamental laws as something dark and hoodoo voodoo? Its science plain and simple.
It would be impossible for anything to logically be wrong if it can truly be, like the hybrid flower.
You can teach a rat to get through a maze and to the cheese, using natural laws, even though at first, it naturally doesn't know where its going or why. Is that black magic hoodoo voodoo?
What are you even talking about? If something can be done, then it would follow, a logical order of natural identity law and be science.
That goes without saying too. If something can be done then, it is following some law of nature and identity.
Take the laws of thermodynamics. They are all natural laws and they are not consistent relative to each other and they contradict each other.
How else can I put this. A law to be a law of nature will be consistent within itself. True. In some cases, the law is inconsistency of movement. Thats what you mean by identity. Laws are not consistent with how others operate and they therefor contradict each other, though, not themselves.
A philosophy has to recognize that to be useful and applicable in discovering how reality works on many levels, with who knows how many yet to be discovered.
Gravity is a law and birds exhibit a means for contradicting that laws force working with other natural laws of lift.
Same with fish that can propel themselves to the surface, against gravity using laws of resistance and propulsion.
Do things consistently get sucked down by gravity or not? If there are laws that can defy it then gravity alone is not THE constant force and there are natural laws that contradict its identity. They are all real and true simultaneously.
I understand consistency within a law and the law of natural identity. That is not to be confused that one law of identity consistently applies to all laws of identity.
I bring this up because I see people here try to use the "one size fits all" philosophy argument and it doesn't.
Is it not arrogant or presumptuous of any modern human to believe we have discovered ALL natural laws in existence? Who knows what laws we will be discovering and working with 100 or 1000 years from now, that a few, may already be, and they get written off, because they haven't become known or self evident to all?
What will the fabric of reality look like when hyper dimensional laws are discovered and become applicable to us?
If a philosophy is based on rubbish it won't work and that will quickly become self evident.
P.S. BOO!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Skorpivo said:
Truth of reality-correspondence. If a philosophy is faulty to the extent that one cannot honestly practice it consistently if they tried, then it is precisely this which it lacks.
I also got to thinking that the ease of applying a philosophy is relatively subjective and not indictive of its lacking. Like how most child care experts know the importance of consistency when following through with your words or else, a child won't trust a thing you say.
It's a philosophy that works well for establishing a trusting bond with a child.
A parent with zero patience and short fuse or little time, will find such a philosophy extremely difficult to follow and apply. Does that mean the philosophy is a bad one and lacking or that a persons inability to follow it is what is lacking?
If everyone but Joe can get a coffee maker to work, are the directions to it lacking or is Joe just lacking in ability to follow written directions?
Ease of following something or not isn't necessarily a one size fits all indicator of a philosophies use, lack, or worth to all.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
jiggy writes:
Quote:
Nature contradicts itself.
No, it most emphatically does not. Nature NEVER contradicts itself. Ever.
The physical laws of the universe are non-contradictory. If you think you have discovered a contradiction, check your premises. Upon more careful inspection you will invariably find that what you first thought of as a contradiction is in fact an error either in your observations or in your analysis of your observations.
Phred
--------------------
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5304724 - 02/15/06 09:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If you think you have discovered a contradiction, check your premises.
You Randians are so lovably predictable.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5304932 - 02/15/06 10:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That comment didn't come from my personal observations. It came from those of scientists who are making discoveries in quantum mechanics.
I gave one example, that can be researched with the 3rd law of thermo dynamics contradicting Newtons Laws of physics. Others have given them here with Bells theorems, and others have with what happens on the Plank scale.
I agreed that a law won't contradict its own self to my current knowledge (unless there is a law of identity self contradictory I am yet unaware of ) If a law appears to contradict itself, then a new law has been discovered is all. Maybe thats what you mean. I agree with that.
That aside, my main argument had to do with nature itself not being consistent and predictable. If one formulates a philosophy that provides predictable consistency, they are working against nature and are forming man made and controlled environments. I didn't say anything was wrong with that, as its useful for obtaining goals.
The fact that nature is inconsistent may serve as evidence that it has no goals of its own.
People approach life from different law levels and will either contradict each other and or, one working with many different law levels will contradict themselves.
I did it here.
In one reply, coming from a base level for the simple, I said any philosophy that doesn't produce results is rubbish (useless to you personally of course).
I took it up a few levels in a later post and said, that sometimes, it is not the philosophy that is lacking, as many others found it useful, but the one can not apply it consistently, is lacking an ability to do so. That should hold no direct reflection of truth unto the philosophy itself for others.
From one view, a philosophy that does not work for one when they try it to the best of their ability can be seen as a lacking philosophy.
From another view, the philosophy itself may not be lacking, rather, the user of it is.
Which is it the author is talking about? A bad philosophy or a bad user? A good philosophy and a bad user? A bad philosophy and a bad user? A bad philosophy and good user? Whose to say what philosophy is good or bad other then the individual using it?
I simply don't see them as being universally practical and user friendly to all even if many call them "good". One can be good in its methodology and have lousy followers of it. Maybe they are lousy followers because it is not in the nature of their identity to follow a specific one.
I think the author was giving a subjective opinion presenting it as some sort of objective universal truth applicable to any Good philosophy. Any time I am told that only one way is right, I know I am getting as partial truth. I start shifting view points around to see more of it.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Nathaniel Branden said: Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were.
I tend to agree.
--------------------
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305017 - 02/15/06 10:41 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I Nathaniel Branden
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305085 - 02/15/06 11:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Just to elaborate, I'd like to say that it is not just inconsistency which makes a bad philosophy, but also rigidness and simplicity. A good philosophy should be flexible and adaptable. In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all. When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out. There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. But the truth is there are no easy answers. The world is a complex place, and to assume that because a philosophy is consistent that it is therefore right is to do yourself a great disservice. Never surrender your own freedom of thought to the shackles of others' philosophy.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
The bolded part is funny Skorp. Why would you even need to be on guard and from what? I can't believe you even said that. I pegged you as a rational and logical scientific thinking type, not someone who lives in fears of superstitions.
Did you or did you not say your personal philosophy allows you greater control over your life, opposed to an approach that assumes zero control? It doesn't matter if you are working with natural laws to gain control over your reality. What do you think the spooky dark arts do? Work with laws that don't exist? If they did, they would be highly ineffective, don't ya think? Sort of like using a bull dozer to make a bed. The difference between white and black magic would be intent of use of natural laws, sort of like how one uses free will to choose to look out for their own well being first. *cough Ayn Rand cough*
That would be an example of black magic use where as white magic looks out for the well being of all involved and often puts its own well being at risk to help others, like those running the under ground railroad.
Black magic hoodoo voodoo scientists manipulate seed genetics to create unnatural hybrid flowers and seeds guaranteed to bloom.
That would be working against the laws of nature in that, they are manipulating the seeds go against their true grain yet, working within natural laws to get them to work.
If you want to put a dark sinister aspect on humans doing that, then go right ahead. If one can get a manipulation of nature to take hold, then, it must be working with a natural law built into place as well.
Oh boy.I'm glad you at least found it funny - because that was the point. I was saying I made a slip, an oops, with a little sarcasm at the end. I realized that there was a semantical confusion, and admitted that I got caught up in your definition without considering the actual definitions, plain and simple. Sorry, I won't kid around with you anymore. Amazingly, you didn't even respond to the salient part of my response, and focused only on that silly tidbit. Well, at least we both found something funny.
Exactly. So why did you label such manipulations of what is natural to become something else natural in accordance with the fundamental laws as something dark and hoodoo voodoo? Its science plain and simple.
It would be impossible for anything to logically be wrong if it can truly be, like the hybrid flower.
You can teach a rat to get through a maze and to the cheese, using natural laws, even though at first, it naturally doesn't know where its going or why. Is that black magic hoodoo voodoo?
What are you even talking about? If something can be done, then it would follow, a logical order of natural identity law and be science.
That goes without saying too. If something can be done then, it is following some law of nature and identity.
Yup. You've lost me. And your voodoo accusations are strawmans - but that's what I get for being astray from the dead-serious side with you.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305147 - 02/15/06 11:42 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were.
Note Branden's precision of wording here. He is not questioning the validity of Objectivist principles (or the principles of any philosophy for that matter), but rather criticizing some Objectivists for not thinking properly -- i.e. for failing to apply the correct principles in a given case. Note that this criticism is applicable to any other philosophy as well.
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5305155 - 02/15/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Note Branden's precision of wording here. He is not questioning the validity of Objectivist principles (or the principles of any philosophy for that matter), but rather criticizing some Objectivists for not thinking properly -- i.e. for failing to apply the correct principles in a given case.
Actually, he seems to be criticising them for holding too strictly to those principles. Certainly Branden has not strayed too far from Objectivism, but he has committed the Objectivist sin of open-mindedness, for which he was ostracized from the Rand's inner circle.
Quote:
Note that this criticism is applicable to any other philosophy as well.
Agreed. See my elaboration two posts down.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305160 - 02/15/06 11:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to say that it is not just inconsistency which makes a bad philosophy, but also rigidness and simplicity.
Overlooking the questionable selection of "simplicity" as a bad quality, I agree - look at Christian fundamentalism, for instance.
A good philosophy should be flexible and adaptable. In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all.
Philosophy is inescapable. Either way, philosophy is something we ALL have in our lives.
When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out.
As you imply, such is a natural hazard with any philosophy - not just Objectivists, as Branden may have implied in your earlier quote [Perhaps I should start collecting quotes about the evils of Christianity now, hmm?]. That's really a human-behavior problem.
There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. But the truth is there are no easy answers. The world is a complex place, and to assume that because a philosophy is consistent that it is therefore right is to do yourself a great disservice.
You have essentially epitomized the basic error made by most intellectuals who are resistent to Objectivism: concluding that because philosophical issues are extremely complicated, they must just be unknowable, and that any kind of certainty is impossible - a similar error would be concluding that because logic is fallible, it must not be a valid way of gaining knowledge. Much of this could be attributed to the influence of Kant and his ilk in society.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: You have essentially epitomized the basic error made by most intellectuals who are resistent to Objectivism: concluding that because philosophical issues are extremely complicated, they must just be unknowable, and that any kind of certainty is impossible - a similar error would be concluding that because logic is fallible, it must not be a valid way of gaining knowledge. Much of this could be attributed to the influence of Kant and his ilk in society.
First of all, where did I say anything about these issues being unknowable? Second, it is ironic that you mention Kant, since the all-important central emphasis in his philosophy was consistency.
--------------------
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305191 - 02/16/06 12:02 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: Just to elaborate, I'd like to say that it is not just inconsistency which makes a bad philosophy, but also rigidness and simplicity. A good philosophy should be flexible and adaptable. In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all. When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out. There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. But the truth is there are no easy answers. The world is a complex place, and to assume that because a philosophy is consistent that it is therefore right is to do yourself a great disservice. Never surrender your own freedom of thought to the shackles of others' philosophy.
I myself am not particularly inclined to philosophy, but shouldn't philosophy be the basis upon which you gather data and then infer meaning from it? You amaze me, you have quite concisely in your post contradicted yourself.
You have gathered information that has led you to the conclusion that philosophy is malicious, yet you had no qualms about representing your particular philosophy. Your philosophy is that philosophy is restrictive and ensnaring.
-------------------- Asshole
Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 12:03 AM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Where did I say philosophy was malicious? I was simply pointing out the trap that one can get into by letting some all-encompassing philosophy dictate their thoughts.
--------------------
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
|
Kant wasn't a philosopher, he was a logician. There can be no inconsistenices in logic. I agree with you there.
I like Futurama, therefor it is logical I will watch Futurama. It is also logical that I have seen Futurama, that is what Kant would say.
-------------------- Asshole
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
jiggy writes:
Quote:
I gave one example, that can be researched with the 3rd law of thermo dynamics contradicting Newtons Laws of physics. Others have given them here with Bells theorems, and others have with what happens on the Plank scale.
None of those are examples of nature (reality) contradicting itself, but rather examples of how some theories of how the universe behaves are incomplete -- sometimes to the point even of contradicting each other.
The way to tell when someone is stumped philosophically is to observe the point at which they trot out Quantum mechanics. Any honest physicist will tell you that QM is applicable only at insanely tiny dimensions -- literally sub-atomic dimensions. As soon as you get even to the size of a complete atom -- much less a molecule -- everything changes. And even then the honest physicist will tell you that it is impossible to accurately convey what is going on in QM with just words -- that only mathematics gives the full picture. The analogies used to make the concepts graspable to non-mathematicians are just that -- analogies.
For example, no one denies that subatomic space is almost entirely empty. Yet that doesn't mean the empty spaces in your hand and the empty spaces in a steel plate will ever line up in such a way that you can pass your hand through the plate. They never will, and no reputable scientist will suggest they ever will.
The point is that in the context of this discussion -- the effect on a human of holding inconsistent philosophies -- what is happening at a subatomic scale is completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Any time I am told that only one way is right, I know I am getting as partial truth.
Really? The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. If you were to base some behavioral choice of yours consistently on the recognition of that fact, you would be acting in the "right" way -- i.e. basing your actions on that particular (easily verifiable) truth. To act as if the sun rises in the west and sets in the east would be to act wrong. So if I tell you that in order to have the natural unaltered light of each day's sunrise brighten the kitchen of your house in Chicago by shining through the kitchen window, the only right way to do it (short of placing a mirror far enough outside your window to reflect it into the window -- but then it is not unaltered) is to make sure you build your kitchen with at least one window facing east, what "partial truth" have I told you?
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Kant was most most certainly a philosopher. He may have also been a logician, but he was a philosopher first and foremost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305209 - 02/16/06 12:10 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
First of all, where did I say anything about these issues being unknowable?
Never claimed you did. I was merely elaborating further from the striking similarity I saw between what you wrote and what I've seen.
Second, it is ironic that you mention Kant, since the all-important central emphasis in his philosophy was consistency.
Highly debatable, if by consistent, you mean logical and non-contradictory.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305210 - 02/16/06 12:11 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all. When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out. There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. philosophy.
you dint specifically say that philosophy was malicious.
I simply mean to establish that you yourself have a very readily identifiable philosphy. It amused me, tat tis all.
futurama is on.
woot woot
-------------------- Asshole
Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 12:17 AM)
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305216 - 02/16/06 12:15 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: Kant was most most certainly a philosopher. He may have also been a logician, but he was a philosopher first and foremost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
semantics my friend, smeantics.
Yeah, I guess he pondered moral implications and the relativity to logic.
-------------------- Asshole
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305217 - 02/16/06 12:15 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Paradigm writes:
Quote:
Actually, he seems to be criticising them for holding too strictly to those principles.
Read it again. He isn't doing that at all. A principle, once identified and verified as corresponding to reality, cannot be discarded whenever it is deemed inconvenient. His beef is with people discovering a principle (or several), then misapplying them. Those who THINK tend to misapply principles less than those who don't.
It's similar to the old saw about someone equipped only with a hammer using it to "fix" everything in sight -- fom loose nails to a squeaky fan belt.
Phred
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305220 - 02/16/06 12:17 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Kant was living during the end of the Enlightenment era when science and reason were undercutting religion at every turn. Kant set out to save religion and religious morality by devising a philosophy that enshrined irrationalism at every turn. Kant is the mystic par excellence.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
|
As you imply, such is a natural hazard with any philosophy - not just Objectivists
You could argue Heavens Gate isn't a cult with the same logic. Why do Objectivists all seem to rigidly believe laissez faire style capitalism is the only correct economy?
Perhaps I should start collecting quotes about the evils of Christianity now, hmm?
I think it would be warrented... At least Objectivism is based in reality (more or less ).
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
|
can there really be philosophy sana inconsitencies. Seems philosophy is conitingent upon ones ability to apply definiton to symbols, who then I ask you is perfect at that?
-------------------- Asshole
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Kant's philosophy had nothing to do with religion. He devised a moral philosophy which was completely divorced from any concept of God or faith. In fact, his moral philosophy was based around a single axiom: consistency.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305236 - 02/16/06 12:25 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
As one of the very few people on this board who has actually expended the effort to read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" (a wasted month I will never get back) in its entirety (English translation), I can confidently say that Kant did indeed hold inconsistent positions. More to the point, the entire core of his philosophy is based on sheer arbitrariness. His central "noumenal" vs "phenomenal" construct is totally unverifiable and must be accepted on Kant's say so alone. He might just as well have asserted we are all merely puppets being manipulated through an advanced remote control transmitter by purple unicorns who live on Ganymede. The unicorn postulate is every bit as valid as Kant's noumenal world.
And even with the luxury of making up out of thin air the conditions he needed in order to make his point, he STILL couldn't manage to be internally self-consistent. Or even logical, at some points.
I agree with you that Kant was more than a logician, he was in fact a philosopher. It's just that he was an incredibly BAD one.
Phred
--------------------
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5305241 - 02/16/06 12:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
...the entire core of his philosophy is based on sheer arbitariness. His central "noumenal" vs "phenomenal" construct is totally unverifiable and must be accepted on Kant's say so alone.
Like, "Existence exists"?
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305248 - 02/16/06 12:31 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Instead of assuming that our ideas, to be true, must conform to an external reality independent of our knowing, Kant proposed that objective reality is known only insofar as it conforms to the essential structure of the knowing mind. He maintained that objects of experience?phenomena?may be known, but that things lying beyond the realm of possible experience?noumena, or things-in-themselves?are unknowable, although their existence is a necessary presupposition.
see, he thinks that it can only be consistent to the extent of the mind in which the stimuli has come to rest. thus inconsistencies in the external real realm of physicality is without doubt, but consistency in the perceived world is quite plausible.
-------------------- Asshole
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Like, "Existence exists"?
Surely you jest. If not, please elaborate.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Yup. You've lost me. And your voodoo accusations are strawmans - but that's what I get for being astray from the dead-serious side with you.
You made the funny voodoo straw man accusations. I was just playing along with the line of evil reasoning you imparted into the discussion. It did lighten it up humorously and I will easily sway to the light side before the heavy and serious any day.
It is very difficult for me to keep a straight face for long with any serious discussion. You have me there. I can't seem to do it. The serious turns to the ridiculous quite quickly for me when the cosmic joke overcomes me and cancels out all rights and wrongs. There is what just is, as it is, subject to change without notice.
What was your salient point that I missed? There was a lot I agreed with, within context. I'll reply to something I missed if I did, though I don't see how because I quoted and replied to everything you wrote.
Sorry for the Ayn Rand joke. I figured if you could dish it out you could take it.
How did I draw you off track anyway so you say? Did you expect everyone besides Phred to agree fully with that post? How can you post something that restrictive, unrealistic, linear and one sided and expect it not to be creatively or re-constructively challenged?
Can you tell me what the weather will be like here in Tampa next year?
Can you tell me how many flowers my Hibiscus bushes will bloom next year and will it be the same after that.
You can't because Nature is not consistent. Its always renewing its natural order. Look at how virus strains change and adapt for example. Ever see a plant grow sideways to catch more sunlight?
Chang-ability and flex-ability is key to evolution and nature.
That means human nature being expected to be consistent with the application of any philosophy without the ability to change it or flex it, as need be is unrealistic. It's just not natural either. Realistic philosophy is inconsistent, not bad philosophy. Unrealistic philosophies created to be strictly adhered too leave no room to change their order or ability to bend, flex and stretch when the unpredictable and unaccounted for arises.
I've noticed objective philosophy just wrrrrrrrrrrrites off the fabric of reality what doesn't fit into the tight forms.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
|
I have trouble following you sometimes gettingjiggywithit.
-------------------- Asshole
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
You made the funny voodoo straw man accusations. I was just playing along with the line of evil reasoning you imparted into the discussion.
Once more, evident it has become that I am no longer able to crack jokes with you.
Sorry for the Ayn Rand joke. I figured if you could dish it out you could take it.
Strawman - nowhere did I even bring up anything about your Ayn Rand jokes. I had to scroll back up to catch where you made any such "joke", in fact.
How did I draw you off track anyway so you say?
You need me to repeat what I've repeated once again? One last time: I didn't consider carefully enough the semantics at hand, and as such, followed with your variant.
Did you expect everyone besides Phred to agree fully with that post? How can you post something that restrictive, unrealistic, linear and one sided and expect it not to be creatively or re-constructively challenged?
I expected some agreement, and some disagreement - as usual. Restrictive? Not as restrictive as ignorance. Unrealistic? That must be why the premise is so utterly verifiable in reality. Unrealistic? Not as unrealistic as mystic thinking. Linear and one-sided? You mean because it doesn't include any welcoming mention of premises that you find yourself an ardent follower of, it is "one-sided"? Well, too bad. You may be used to other forums where anybody can feel good about random arbitrary junk that they pull out their philosophical ass, but the bar is a tad bit higher in this forum.
You can't because Nature is not consistent.
Again, false. Nature is, at the very least, just as consistent as it is inconsistent - and, nature is 100% consistent if we are talking about the actual kind of consistency that is relevant to the topic at hand.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/16/06 01:54 AM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Once more, evident it has become that I am no longer able to crack jokes with you.
I told you off the bat I took it as a joke. I know when you must be joking and especially there because like I said, I know you don't rationally believe in things like dark magic and voodoo. You couldn't tell I was joking around with my P.S. Boo! comment? Please.........
I apologized for the Ayn Rand crack because it was the only place where I joked back in like. It seems to me like you are taking this conversation way to seriously here. Where else did I imply there was hoodoo voodoo going with anything but her philosophy. That was a joke.
I was running with your joke because I did find it funny.
Quote:
You need me to repeat what I've repeated once again? One last time: I didn't consider carefully enough the semantics at hand, and as such, followed with your variant.
What semantic variant are you talking about? Spit it out or be like straw man. While your at it, I asked you what salient point you made that I missed. You probably didn't catch it was one I agreed with, because you were probably reading everything I typed as an argument against the salient points of the article. That's your reading mistake not mine.
Quote:
Restrictive? Not as restrictive as ignorance.
I see it another way. I found the restriction to consistancy to be in ignorance of nature itself in the authors article and pointed it out, That part of the article is ignorant.
Quote:
Unrealistic? That must be why the premise is so utterly verifiable in reality.
Humans as natural beings are not consistant. Now how can you say consistancy related to humans is an utterly verifyable reality. Thats as unrealistic as it gets.
Quote:
Not as unrealistic as mystic thinking.
Who ever said mystical thinking applied to the external physical, material world aka real world? If you are in ignorance beleiving it does or ever did, thats not my fault. Just because are physical bodies dwell in this world doesn't mean we don't have sublte energy bodies dwelling in other sublte worlds. The laws of physics don't apply in them.
Quote:
Linear and one-sided? You mean because it doesn't include any welcoming mention of premises that you find yourself an ardent follower of, it is "one-sided"? Well, too bad.
If it didn't acknowledge the practical applications and uses of both focused thinking and open free thinking, then it left itself open to that one sided criticism. The philosophy I am most ardent of is open to all possibilities and ways. It's all sided. Its also not bad for me as I am free to go anywhere in thought, including focused or wide lens and that freedom to flex serves me well. Maybe bad for you because open free thinking allows for people to critique tight articles like that.
Quote:
You may be used to other forums where anybody can feel good about random arbitrary junk that they pull out their philosophical ass, but the bar is a tad bit higher in this forum.
I've been posting here pretty much daily for the last year and a half and 80% more then I do anywhere else. This forum is what I am most use to.
That last quote of yours came off really arrogant. Do you really believe that you are superior and above people at other forums skorp? Is putting yourself above others a part of objective philosophy? Thats right, it is as well as putting yourself before others. Objective philosophy may adhere to the delusion of superior and inferior thinking, not the reality I hold as a higher truth, that all thought holds truth within its own view, right and reason. Subjectivity gets just as much credit as objectivity does in my world view. Humans are spiritual beings before physical ones as well in my subjective view and in spirit all are equal. Bars that separate and divide don't exist there.
Quote:
Again, false. Nature is, at the very least, just as consistent as it is inconsistent.
Then how can any human nature be expected to consistently follow a philosophy? Swami was the best at being consistant here and I caught him in a huge contradiction once and he owned up to it. I understood how even he could contradict himself because, its natural and normal for free thinking humans to do that. The only reason I called him on it was so he could reflect on how he was right in both cases, relative to the position and view he had at each time.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
|
Contradiction is the thing that substantiates personality in people. I consistently believe that even though my soul is riddeld with contradictions, in fact I consistnely find myself fighting urges contrary to my own moral and philosphical foundation, that that is in fact one a the beauties of intelligent scentient life. There is no inherent inconsistency in the laws of nature there.
A pattern of sheer chaos, is impeccably consistent in that you can rest assured the next manifestation of the pattern will be random. IN the tru sense of the term sheer chaos.
Capiche?
please excuse me my errors, I haven't slept in three days.
Insomnia sucks.
-------------------- Asshole
Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 09:58 AM)
|
FungusMan
I81U812



Registered: 08/06/05
Posts: 3,112
Loc: Everywhere
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said: Philosophical -- in some vague manner that presupposes some understanding between stoners, people that speak a certain language (having a similar understanding of English) and those that share similar customs about "shooting the shit".
Being philosophy -- no, like almost all the posts in this forum there is no philosophy within.
Philosophy & Spirituality is more about building up one's ego and getting other's to agree with one depending upon a) who one is or b) what the first respondent to any thread-starter says. The philosophy here ausually starts and ends with consent and prejudice. Where's the openness, where's the intellectual rigor, where's the challenge and attempt to understand those that don't speak the obvious?
Here's a good example of "bad" philosophy.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
I told you off the bat I took it as a joke. I know when you must be joking and especially there because like I said, I know you don't rationally believe in things like dark magic and voodoo. You couldn't tell I was joking around with my P.S. Boo! comment? Please.........
Well, y'see, here's the thing you said:
You made the funny voodoo straw man accusations. I was just playing along with the line of evil reasoning you imparted into the discussion.
As I understood, you meant what you actually said - but if you say otherwise now, then alrighty. Moving along..
What semantic variant are you talking about?
Once again: "You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion. "
While your at it, I asked you what salient point you made that I missed.
See above. From what I gathered in your post, you addressed only the humorous precursor to that paragraph, and then moved on to the next quote. If you actually did address it somewhere down the road, then I must've missed it - and you'll have to forgive me, as your writing style is a bit stressful for me to decipher. As a fellow member once said, "reading her posts is like trying to catch wet soap in the shower wearing a blindfold."
I found the restriction to consistancy to be in ignorance of nature itself in the authors article and pointed it out,
Correction: You found the restriction to your definition of consistency to be in conflict with your conceptions of nature. The fact is, the focus on consistency [defined relevantly] that is discussed in the article is in accordance with nature itself.
Who ever said mystical thinking applied to the external physical, material world aka real world? If you are in ignorance beleiving it does or ever did, thats not my fault. Just because are physical bodies dwell in this world doesn't mean we don't have sublte energy bodies dwelling in other sublte worlds. The laws of physics don't apply in them.
Behold the power of imagination.
Humans as natural beings are not consistant.
They are consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. Context is crucial here. Moroever, the kind of consistency that is relevant to the article at hand, is certainly a kind of consistency that can be integrated in a philosophy itself - that, is what we are talking about. Bad philosophy is inconsistent. This quite verifiable in reality.
If it didn't acknowledge the practical applications and uses of both focused thinking and open free thinking, then it left itself open to that one sided criticism.
Open free thinking isn't an issue here - but there is a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility. Just because I, for one, listen to another's ideas does not mean that I must therefore take them to be true at face value.
The philosophy I am most ardent of is open to all possibilities and ways. It's all sided.
In action, or in thought?
Its also not bad for me as I am free to go anywhere in thought, including focused or wide lens and that freedom to flex serves me well. Maybe bad for you because open free thinking allows for people to critique tight articles like that.
Hell, it isn't as if I don't wander in thought myself, Jiggy. I admit have been known by close associates to have an extremely zany and wacky mind at times - probably from watching too many certain cartoons during childhood.. and not to mention all the magic mushies I've consumed. Anybody can "play around" like that - but there is time and place for everything, and there is a time and place where one must grow up and live the life that is much more rewarding as an adult, rather than behaving like an infant.
Do you really believe that you are superior and above people at other forums skorp?
I believe that, in comparison to others, this forum is superior - but superior for what? Critical discussion and analytical thinking. On the other hand, I know other forums that are far more superior than this forum for that purpose alone. Conversely, other forums -such as MR&P- are obviously superior in their own respects, such as freedom from lack of reason and scientific thinking.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/16/06 04:44 AM)
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
I used to share this view of inconsistency = bad philosophy. Then I wondered why everything had to have a solid foundation. We're born into this world of uncertainty with nothing but our ability to adapt and recognize patterns. Nimble-minded and curious, we tend to grow up to be rigid and stagnant. Why?
Compulsive curiosity is the path I tread.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
DeepDish
Stranger
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 86
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
You can't because Nature is not consistent. Its always renewing its natural order. Look at how virus strains change and adapt for example. Ever see a plant grow sideways to catch more sunlight?
Chang-ability and flex-ability is key to evolution and nature.
I think what you mean to say is that nature is dynamic as opposed to being static. Just because nature is based upon CONSISTENT fundemental laws, does not mean that the behavior of entities in nature must show the same conistency. Think about a sport; any sport will work, but I'll use football. The sport of football has certain rules that govern its play and these rules define the sport known as football. The ball that is used has a given shape and weight which is different from the ball used in baseball. If a football game was played with a baseball one day, a football the next, and a soccerball in the final game then it would no longer be a football game, as it would be inconsistent with the rules that define it. The knowledge of these rules, however, does not mean the actual game has a consistent or predictable outcome. The rules of football are CONSISTENT, the game however is dynamic. I guess my main point is that much like football, nature is a dynamic system that is built upon consistent rules.
While I consider myself an objectivist in the sense that I believe the universe is constructed with set laws the exist seperate from my perception and understanding these laws is the best path to aquiring knowledge, I disagree with the philosphical implications of objectivism. To me nature simply IS, the entire concept of right and wrong become meaningless in an objective context. Since nature cannot be wrong, neither can it be right, and therefore this can quickly lead to very disturbing philosphical implications. For all other organisms besides humans, it is impossible to label actions as right or wrong. While Phred will probably argue that objectivism leads to the discovery of natural rights, I would in turn say that it is a dead end. This idea was probably best covered in the numerous PAL threads on natural rights.
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Sclorch]
#5306139 - 02/16/06 09:56 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: I used to share this view of inconsistency = bad philosophy. Then I wondered why everything had to have a solid foundation. We're born into this world of uncertainty with nothing but our ability to adapt and recognize patterns. Nimble-minded and curious, we tend to grow up to be rigid and stagnant. Why?
Compulsive curiosity is the path I tread.
inconsistency does equal bad philosophy, it shows a lack of follow through.
If one is inconsistent in their basic intellectual and philosophical precpets it says to me they either got tired of thinking about the end product of their musings or they just don't care.
In all things, input vs output.
inconsistent input equals inconsistent output.
Part of the reason things need solid foundation is they continue to stand.
A house with a weak fou8ndation sinks, corrputing the structural integrrity of the house. This becomes dangerous, it must be fixed. Thus tme and energy are needed to rectify the problem. Time and energy that could be used for more pleasureable endeavors instead of endeavors that could have been avoided.
The outcome of the unsound foundation is non grata.
Nimble mindedness does not mean you have to forfeit consistnecy, it just meand you have to adapt. You must take your new stimuli and carve out a place for it in a fashion that is relevant and ordered. If becuase you learn something new today you can't remain consistent then I say that is the definition of a hardened mind, a mind not capable of adapting.
-------------------- Asshole
Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 10:06 AM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: DeepDish]
#5306365 - 02/16/06 10:57 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I appreciate your reasoning there deep dish. I too am not opposed to the practical use of objectivity and I use it often. I also use many other philosophical approaches to life because I find that it helps myself to remain adaptive to a Dynamic and changing, not static universe as you said.
An objective approach applies well to the objective reality.
A subjective approach applies well to the subjective reality.
A relative approach applies well to the relative reality.
And so on..........
Reality to me is made up of many facets and dimensions. If I always came at life or received it from one stance, I feel I would miss out on a lot of the larger picture.
I wish to be more reasonable and understanding here though. I forget how much a multi perspective view is A LOT to manage and process. I thrive in it, others may be crushed by information sensory overload or overwhelmed not having a place to put everything in so, much with value and use to others just goes in their trash.
People keep telling us to keep life simple and yet, the universe is so complex how can we know it more fully through simple means?
A simple meal of bread, peanut butter and water, isn't as inviting, fulfilling, interesting or delicious as a gourmet 6 course meal. I like a quote from Auntie Mamie that says, "Life is banquet and most poor suckers are starving." I just want everyone at the banquet table of life with me is all.
Off to reply to skorps last reply.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: DeepDish]
#5306562 - 02/16/06 11:54 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
While I consider myself an objectivist in the sense that I believe the universe is constructed with set laws the exist seperate from my perception and understanding these laws is the best path to aquiring knowledge, I disagree with the philosphical implications of objectivism. To me nature simply IS, the entire concept of right and wrong become meaningless in an objective context. Since nature cannot be wrong, neither can it be right, and therefore this can quickly lead to very disturbing philosphical implications.
Actually, Deepdish, Objectivism does not disagree with your view of nature. Strictly speaking, nature is not objective nor subjective - it is only the human mind which is objective or non-objective. Rand and Dr. Peikoff have explicitly maintained this. So yes, nature simply is as it is.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
DeepDish
Stranger
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 86
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
An objective approach applies well to the objective reality.
A subjective approach applies well to the subjective reality.
A relative approach applies well to the relative reality.
If you accept that reality exists independantly of yourself, then reality is objective. In fact the word reality itself is closely tied to objectivity. Perception does not give rise to reality, rather reality allows for perception. It is the experiance of reality that is subjective, not reality itself.
Quote:
Reality to me is made up of many facets and dimensions. If I always came at life or received it from one stance, I feel I would miss out on a lot of the larger picture.
Explain what you mean by many "facets" and "dimensions" Has anyone on this board advocated coming at life from only one stance?
Quote:
I wish to be more reasonable and understanding here though. I forget how much a multi perspective view is A LOT to manage and process. I thrive in it, others may be crushed by information sensory overload or overwhelmed not having a place to put everything in so, much with value and use to others just goes in their trash.
While it probably isn't your intention, this is just condescending. It would be just as easy to say people adopt vague spiritual beliefs in an attempt to deal with the fact they are overwhelmed by sensory information that they can't understand. It is much easier to say the stars are lights from heaven, then actually finding out what they truly are.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: DeepDish]
#5306586 - 02/16/06 12:02 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DeepDish said: If you accept that reality exists independantly of yourself, then reality is objective. In fact the word reality itself is closely tied to objectivity. Perception does not give rise to reality, rather reality allows for perception. It is the experiance of reality that is subjective, not reality itself.
You exist as both subject and object. Therefore, reality is both subjective and objective.
--------------------
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5306599 - 02/16/06 12:06 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think you have it backwards, deep dish. reality does allow for perception true, but perception lends itself to reality in the sense that as you see things so must your reality be equivolent.
If you can't see the tree in fromt of you then you run the risk of running into it. Your reality must need dictate that you walk with a seeing eye dog, or run the risk of running into things.
If you can see the tree then you can successfully navigate around it. But you must still adhere to the natural order of perception, I see tree, its my reality, I must act accordingly.
-------------------- Asshole
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5306620 - 02/16/06 12:12 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
DeepDish said: If you accept that reality exists independantly of yourself, then reality is objective. In fact the word reality itself is closely tied to objectivity. Perception does not give rise to reality, rather reality allows for perception. It is the experiance of reality that is subjective, not reality itself.
You exist as both subject and object. Therefore, reality is both subjective and objective.
Individual reality can be seen as subjective - defined as particular to, but ultimately, all of our experiences are objective because it is part of an objective system of reality.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
DeepDish
Stranger
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 86
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
|
The fact the tree exists and is real is not dependent on your ability to directly perceive it. There are many parts of reality that humans cannot perceive directly, but they are no less real and part of reality then the tree in front of you.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
A good nights sleep has me somewhere else. Where were we  
Quote:
As I understood, you meant what you actually said - but if you say otherwise now, then alright. Moving along..
What semantic variant are you talking about?
How could I have meant anything related to that running joke if I know you didn't mean what you said that got it rolling?
Whats the deal, you can not mean calling someone a black magic hoodoo voodoo witch, but if I follow with like ridiculous humor, I meant it seriously? If thats what you thought, alrighty...moving on
Quote:
Once again: "You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion. "
I agreed with that within its context. I don't understand why something so simply and brutally logical even needs mentioning.
Thats my fault as like nakors said elsewhere, what is obvious to one may not be to another. Its true that people who can't get a thing accomplish can benefit from methodical consistent applications. Paper in, paper out, paper in paper out, paper in paper out. Don't you every start feeling like an automated machine on the repeat button when you ALWAYS live life like that?
Consistent methodology that brings about predictability doesn't serve well in all applications of life. It sucks hard if you are at war. The last thing you want is for the enemy to find your pattern easily predictable and consistent. They will crush you with that knowledge. When the U.S. figured that out, the won their freedom from British rule.
Granted none of us are in a war zone, yet many make their living in a competitive corporate environment here. The competition in the REAL corporate world out there will crush you if you can't adapt to dynamic environment where some of the other guy is out to crush you to get you out the game.
Same reason why Bruce Lee innovated the martial arts philosophy and style of Jeet Kune Do. If your fighting style is easily predictable, you will get creamed.
My point here is that, we are not bound to consistency and deviating from it can have practical use in certain real life situations.
The authors article does not adhere to every bit of the fabric of reality in a useful way.
You can't separate the too though is the thing. Bruce still has to develop consistent blocks punches and kicks or his fighting style of inconsistency of predictability will be useless.
Quote:
From what I gathered in your post, you addressed only the humorous precursor to that paragraph, and then moved on to the next quote.
if I didn't specifically address something, that just meant I agreed with it as it was. I was adding further considerations to the over all topic.
Quote:
as your writing style is a bit stressful for me to decipher.
Put me on user ignore if its that stressful for you. Problem solved. I see it like lakefingers pointed out. Some people here are to lazy to work to understand what isn't readily understandable. Gomp use to frustrate me until i started working to understand him. Now, he brings ease to places where my thinking gets rigid.
Quote:
As a fellow member once said, "reading her posts is like trying to catch wet soap in the shower wearing a blindfold."
Well now that just sounds like fun to me. (Hmmm soapy blindfolded showers with hubby ) Perhaps the way to read my writing style easier is to be in fun mode because that's where its written from. I don't know how not to have fun in most all I do.
Quote:
Correction: You found the restriction to your definition of consistency to be in conflict with your conceptions of nature. The fact is, the focus on consistency [defined relevantly] that is discussed in the article is in accordance with nature itself.
I clearly continue to disagree if you haven't noticed and give many reasons and examples of why. I find most of nature to be consistently inconsistent. The same birds don't fly the same path over my home at the same time every day. Yet flying for a bird is consistent behavior for its nature.
However, the mail man ruled by man made rules, does consistently drive the same truck, along the same path through my neighborhood at the same time every day, except Sunday.
Sure, it gets his job done.
Hey, are you familiar with the expression "going postal" ? 
It's just not natural for humans to act like automatons. Were' not and if we do 24/7 something is going to give and it won't be pretty when the levee breaks.
Behold the power of imagination.
YES! BEHOLD IT. Einstein imagined what it would be like to travel on a light particle and ......you know the rest of the discovers that lead too.
Some awesome woman imagined what it would be like for her mother to have a robot vacuum cleaner and voila, the roomba was born.
Bless the gift of imagine for without it, we never would've made it out of the cave.
Quote:
They are consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. Context is crucial here. Moreover, the kind of consistency that is relevant to the article at hand, is certainly a kind of consistency that can be integrated in a philosophy itself - that, is what we are talking about. Bad philosophy is inconsistent. This quite verifiable in reality.
This is just getting redundant now. I agreed with the use of it in a context. In some, its use is limited and inconsistent application is the better alternative to reach an objective. The guy who walks away from reading just the article and thinks he should run his competitive business strategy consistently will be crushed. As soon as his competitors figure out his game, they can smack it down and one up it.
If his philosophy doesn't allow for him to be inconsistent so he can stay ahead or adapt to the change, Consistency in such a case is now a BAD philosophy.
Quote:
Open free thinking isn't an issue here - but there is a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility. Just because I, for one, listen to another's ideas does not mean that I must therefore take them to be true at face value.
Thats not even what I meant by open mindedness or being free thinking. If one just thinks solely along the lines of the article, without a critical analysis, they may miss, the miss applications of a consistent philosophy as I pointed some out. That is all. had he said, "it works well for this and that, but not so well for that and this, I would've had nothing to add.
The philosophy I am most ardent of is open to all possibilities and ways. It's all sided.
In action, or in thought?
Both. What good is thought being able to go places if the body can't follow its lead to new realities. An infertile couple wanting children will be screwed if they think their is only one way to conceive. Those that open up to ideas like in vitro and take action, may be changing diapers in no time.
My mom taught me that where there is a will, there is a way, through her actions. She's right. I don't give up easy, and I find ways to get to where I want to be because I believe they are there to be found and traveled.
Quote:
Hell, it isn't as if I don't wander in thought myself, Jiggy. I admit have been known by close associates to have an extremely zany and wacky mind at times - probably from watching too many certain cartoons during childhood.. and not to mention all the magic mushies I've consumed.

Quote:
Anybody can "play around" like that - but there is time and place for everything, and there is a time and place where one must grow up and live the life that is much more rewarding as an adult, rather than behaving like an infant.
Were you referring to your hoodoo voodoo infantile joking around you laid on me earlier? 
Seriously, if you believe my life off a message board is free from mature adult interaction and responsibility and life management, then, you must be joking again. If I had a dollar for every ad hominem you throw into this post at me, I'd have a lot of dollars in my hand. They are funny to me so, who cares.
Quote:
I believe that, in comparison to others, this forum is superior - but superior for what? Critical discussion and analytical thinking.
Have I not been giving critical analysis of the article you posted? You're getting pissy because I am doing just that. Lower the bar if you can't handle where its placed.
Quote:
On the other hand, I know other forums that are far more superior than this forum for that purpose alone. Conversely, other forums -such as MR&P- are obviously superior in their own respects, such as freedom from lack of reason and scientific thinking.
Could it be that MR&P is not a science forum? Why are you comparing it to one? Could it be that the line of reasoning used in it, does not fit within the rules of your personal philosophy or rule system of how reason is suppose to work?
Others seem to be able to make use of it. Thats just because they aren't limited to what environments they can allow themselves to interact in and adapt to. It serves a different function then P&S and the science forum. It covers the areas of subjective reality experienced by people that share in it, which science and objectivists only, write off as non existent because they don't have the tools or rules to let that part of knowable existence in.
Comparing the functions of P&S to MR&P is like comparing a cat to a dishwasher. If all you're after is clean dishes then, yes the dishwasher is the superior means of utilization for you.
Saying dishwashers are superior to cats (P&S is superior to MR&P) is a senseless and useless comment. Cervantes's was concerned with the split that posters of MR&P would put down P&S, however, its been the other way around so far. What was that you were saying about acting like a mature and reasonable adult Skorp? 
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: Individual reality can be seen as subjective - defined as particular to, but ultimately, all of our experiences are objective because it is part of an objective system of reality.
What you fail to see is that it works just as easily the other way around. Objective reality is just as much a part of my subjective perception as my subjective experience is of objective reality. Reality is contained within perception, while the subject is contained within reality. I call it the subject-object paradox.
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: DeepDish]
#5306863 - 02/16/06 12:53 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It is the experience of reality that is subjective, not reality itself.
WOW in one swoop of a sentence, you just wiped our collective life's experiences off the face of realities map. Are your experiences any less really happening though you then, the earth spinning round?
I really watch a movie and really experienced much laughter through it. Are you going to tell me that never really happened?
Quote:
Explain what you mean by many "facets" and "dimensions" Has anyone on this board advocated coming at life from only one stance?
Lets say you are standing in front a home and I am standing behind it. We are both looking at the house. You give your description of it from your view and I give mine. There are people here who believe, their view of just the front of the house, is the only view it can be seen from and the right one. For real. Its funny stuff.
Applying the dimensions would include, the space inside the house, inside, the rooms, inside, the closets, inside the boxes in them. The further you go move around into seeing all the faceted views of the homes exterior, and then into its interior spaces, the more knowledge you have of the entire homes truth. Thats all dimensions are, space within space. Facets are sides of things with many sides, like a diamond cut gem.
Quote:
While it probably isn't your intention, this is just condescending.
Exactly and I don't want to be that way and I realized I may have been getting that way.
Quote:
It would be just as easy to say people adopt vague spiritual beliefs in an attempt to deal with the fact they are overwhelmed by sensory information that they can't understand. It is much easier to say the stars are lights from heaven, then actually finding out what they truly are.
You could say it but you would be flapping wind. The stuff that may sound like vague spiritual beliefs deals with what of reality, science has not yet come to understand. Spirituality deals with the spirit and realms of spirit and how it interfaces with the physical.
The closest science has come to helping us out with it are advancements in vibrational medicine and quantum mechanics. They still have a ways to go before they can help us to understand meta-physics.
If you meant to say, meta physical perception, is just the result of chemicals in your brain, and a meta reality doesn't exist then.....that could be equally condescending/ignorant of others because you can't prove that.
A broader view would say, certain chemicals in the brain allow for us to perceive the meta reality from within physical human consciousness/beingness. It's both to me and probably much more.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
I agreed with that within its context. I don't understand why something so simply and brutally logical even needs mentioning.
Because a priori, you kept bringing up examples of inconsistency that dealt with irregularity and erraticness, as if this is the kind of inconsistency that you thought the article was discussing.
Don't you every start feeling like an automated machine on the repeat button when you ALWAYS live life like that?
Consistent methodology that brings about predictability doesn't serve well in all applications of life. It sucks hard if you are at war. The last thing you want is for the enemy to find your pattern easily predictable and consistent. They will crush you with that knowledge. When the U.S. figured that out, the won their freedom from British rule.
Granted none of us are in a war zone, yet many make their living in a competitive corporate environment here. The competition in the REAL corporate world out there will crush you if you can't adapt to dynamic environment where some of the other guy is out to crush you to get you out the game.
Yes - eccentricity is most certainly valuable in many, many situations. That isn't something I am in disagreement with, nor is it the kind of inconsistency that is relevant to the topic at hand. But, thank you for illustrating the other kind of inconsistencies that are okay - if that is your whole, entire point, then very well then! 
Both. What good is thought being able to go places if the body can't follow its lead to new realities.
In thought, I can roam around wherever the hell I want to. But in action that's another story. If I want to create or utilize a philosophy only dealing with thought - then hell, almost anything goes. However, if I am to do the same but with a philosophy that deals with reality, thought, action, and even politics - the whole entire package - then I must excercise much more caution and responsibility, for the same reason that the engineers of BMW must excercise caution and responsibility in engineering the design of their well-built vehicles - because an egregious error can lead to disasters, and even fatalities.
Seriously, if you believe my life off a message board is free from mature adult interaction and responsibility and life management, then, you must be joking again
Strawman. I made no such assumptions nor claims. As however difficult it may be for you to believe, what I wrote was not an ad hominem.
Have I not been giving critical analysis of the article you posted? You're getting pissy because I am doing just that. Lower the bar if you can't handle where its placed.
Strawman, and faux psychic impersonation. If your psychic skills were any better, you'd know that I'm quite collected and calm. The fact is, I am enjoying the spiciness of this forum and thread - in other words, the colorfulness that results from the varieties of positions and stances. We have our Christian, our Empiricist, our Objectivists, our Mystic, this and that, it's quite stimulating and lively.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5307095 - 02/16/06 01:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What you fail to see is that it works just as easily the other way around.
Not quite - not if you accept the axiom that existence exists, and that Existence has Primacy.
Therefore, if it exists, it is ultimately an objective existence because it is part of an objective system of reality.
Objective reality is just as much a part of my subjective perception as my subjective experience is of objective reality.
Objective reality is just as much a part of my objective perception as my objective experience is of objective reality. I don't deny that I have particular experiences - but I recognize that ultimately, it is all part of objective existence.
Reality is contained within perception, while the subject is contained within reality.
If the subject is contained in reality, then why draw the line between the "subject" and reality in the first place? Of course, objectively, there is no line drawn, as reality is one integrated whole. But psychologically speaking, you are creating such a border. Now for practical purposes, I perfectly understand the use of a border for the sake of individual purposes - but ultimately, I can also recognize that objectively, we are all part of the objective system of reality, which is one integrated whole.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Sinbad
Living TheMoment


Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
|
|
When subjectivity dissolves, our considerations of also objectivity disolves becuase the two are totally interdependent. Living in the perfected essence of non-duality, one sees that things are neither objective nor subjective as science tells us that nothing exists indepednently, from its own side.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Sinbad]
#5307118 - 02/16/06 01:54 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sinbad said: When subjectivity dissolves, our considerations of also objectivity disolves becuase the two are totally interdependent. Living in the perfected essence of non-duality, one sees that things are neither objective nor subjective as science tells us that nothing exists indepednently, from its own side.
This guy gets it.
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5307126 - 02/16/06 01:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
Sinbad said: When subjectivity dissolves, our considerations of also objectivity disolves becuase the two are totally interdependent. Living in the perfected essence of non-duality, one sees that things are neither objective nor subjective as science tells us that nothing exists indepednently, from its own side.
This guy gets it.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Sinbad]
#5307223 - 02/16/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sinbad said: When subjectivity dissolves, our considerations of also objectivity disolves becuase the two are totally interdependent. Living in the perfected essence of non-duality, one sees that things are neither objective nor subjective as science tells us that nothing exists indepednently, from its own side.
Now we have a Buddhist, even more colorful this discussion has become. 
I'd like to recite a quote from a Taoist book I came across long ago:
Quote:
The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness with all things.
The context was in reference to god - rather, the Taoist approach to the meaning of god - but that's another topic. Objectivism supports this very oneness in a very real way; that metaphysically speaking, there is only one universe, one reality which is an integrated whole. There are no entirely isolated facts or entities. Existence exists, and every existent exists in some relation or the other, to another existent, and so forth, this is an objective fact. If we are to realize that we, too, are integrated into existence, then we are all part of this objective system of reality. As reality is one integrated whole, this is an objective fact. Facts may be ignored or dismissed by one's individual mind, but this does not alter existence itself.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
But, thank you for illustrating the other kind of inconsistencies that are okay - if that is your whole, entire point, then very well then! 
Yes, that was the over all goal. Thank you for understanding it. 
Quote:
In thought, I can roam around wherever the hell I want to. But in action that's another story. If I want to create or utilize a philosophy only dealing with thought - then hell, almost anything goes. However, if I am to do the same but with a philosophy that deals with reality, thought, action, and even politics - the whole entire package - then I must excercise much more caution and responsibility, for the same reason that the engineers of BMW must excercise caution and responsibility in engineering the design of their well-built vehicles - because an egregious error can lead to disasters, and even fatalities.
I have no idea where I ever implied anything to the contrary. I concur with that!
Quote:
Strawman. I made no such assumptions nor claims. As however difficult it may be for you to believe, what I wrote was not an ad hominem.
Of course, it has nothing to do with debating the topic. You write stuff having nothing to do with the topic and I'll respond to it non the less though. Stick with the subject matter and you won't get responces like that. 
Quote:
I am enjoying the spiciness of this forum and thread - in other words, the colorfulness that results from the varieties of positions and stances. We have our Christian, our Empiricist, our Objectivists, our Mystic, this and that, it's quite stimulating and lively.
Indeed! 
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Sinbad
Living TheMoment


Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
|
|
Exactly! 
Strange that you should mention this as i just posted a post in the other thread about exactly this kind of way of understanding the concepts of God and Oness.
"The context was in reference to god - rather, the Taoist approach to the meaning of god - but that's another topic. Objectivism supports this very oneness in a very real way; that metaphysically speaking, there is only one universe, one reality which is an integrated whole. There are no entirely isolated facts or entities. Existence exists, and every existent exists in some relation or the other, to another existent, and so forth, this is an objective fact. If we are to realize that we, too, are integrated into existence, then we are all part of this objective system of reality. As reality is one integrated whole, this is an objective fact. Facts may be ignored or dismissed by one's individual mind, but this does not alter existence itself."
--------------------
Edited by Sinbad (02/16/06 02:28 PM)
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Sinbad]
#5307285 - 02/16/06 02:31 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sinbad said: Exactly! 
Strange that you should mention this as i just posted a post in the other thread about exactly this kind of way of understanding the concepts of God and Oness.
"The context was in reference to god - rather, the Taoist approach to the meaning of god - but that's another topic. Objectivism supports this very oneness in a very real way; that metaphysically speaking, there is only one universe, one reality which is an integrated whole. There are no entirely isolated facts or entities. Existence exists, and every existent exists in some relation or the other, to another existent, and so forth, this is an objective fact. If we are to realize that we, too, are integrated into existence, then we are all part of this objective system of reality. As reality is one integrated whole, this is an objective fact. Facts may be ignored or dismissed by one's individual mind, but this does not alter existence itself."
This guy gets it. 
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Skorpivo: It seems that you and me have different ideas of what "subjective" means(poetic justice, no?). What I mean by subjective is not simply that we percieve things differently, but rather the very fact that we percieve. You say "Existence exists" and I agree, but it is equally true to say "Perception exists," and that neither statement is subordinate to the other. They are both part of a greater, non-dualistic reality which is neither subjective nor objective, but encompasses both.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5307703 - 02/16/06 04:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What I mean by subjective is not simply that we percieve things differently, but rather the very fact that we percieve.
If by the very fact that we percieve, you don't mean that we percieve in a conditional [read: human] way, then precisely how do you mean it is subjective? The fact is perception has existence, and because it has existence, it exists objectively, as it is integrated in objective existence.
You say "Existence exists" and I agree, but it is equally true to say "Perception exists," and that neither statement is subordinate to the other.
Indeed, both are equally true, however, existence exists is an irreducible axiom, it is a primary. If we are to acknowledge this axiom, then we must also realize that the same cannot be said of "perception exists".
They are both part of a greater, non-dualistic reality which is neither subjective nor objective, but encompasses both.
If it is non-dualistic, then how can it encompass both dualities? Strictly speaking, nature beyond man's mind encompasses neither subjectivity or objectivity - it just is - that, is non-dualism.
Reality itself only has objectivity in relation to consciousness. There are facts determined by the nature of reality, and to be discovered by man's mind. I cannot ignore the fact that reality is one integrated whole, and that we are all part of an objective existence. Moreover, aside from ego-based needs that are very real, there is no reason to create an objective-subjective dichotomy, which gives rise to the mind-body dichotomy - as Phred pointed out before, Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, and instead integrates the two into one integrated whole - just like the objective nature of existence.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: You say "Existence exists" and I agree, but it is equally true to say "Perception exists," and that neither statement is subordinate to the other.
Indeed, both are equally true, however, existence exists is an irreducible axiom, it is a primary. If we are to acknowledge this axiom, then we must also realize that the same cannot be said of "perception exists".
False. Existence exists only relation to perception, and likewise, perception exists only in relation to existence. The perciever and percieved together make up reality. They are interdependent, as Sinbad pointed out.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5308005 - 02/16/06 05:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds to me you guys are arguing at cross purposes about the same thing.
Existence exists. That is axiomatic and can be readily demonstrated ostensively. Perception also exists, and can be demonstrated through introspection -- "I think, therefore I am".
The point is that perception is an attribute of certain existants -- specifically living entities of a certain threshold complexity. While it is true that existence cannot be perceived absent at least one perceiver, it does not follow that existence would vanish if there were no perceivers operating within it.
It's not a two way street -- while the universe can continue to exist without perceivers, perceivers cannot continue to exist without a universe.
Phred
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5308301 - 02/16/06 07:20 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Exactamente.
The premise precedes the proof.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/16/06 08:55 PM)
|
|