Philosophers...

[Taomeow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24178570

[Marblehead]

I scanned that article a couple days ago when I first saw it. I'm just glad that we are at an on-line forum else I would perhaps get into deep trouble now and again.

[Tsunami_MAPUA]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[mewtwo]

immanuel kant possibly had autism.

[Grigory]

Two men get into a fight over 200-year-old philosophy, and the world points and stares.

 

Millions die in a dispute over a 2,000-year-old religion, and the world shrugs and moves on.

[Taomeow]

What exactly do you propose?

 

How about a war on cars -- every day the same number of Americans die in car accidents as did on 9/11.

 

You want to point out that where the media points mass awareness ain't where it's at -- I agree, but why do this in my thread? Start your own, the world is your oyster.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Taomeow

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Flolfolil

[PLB]

I push regularly with a guy who is into Kant.

I read Kant pretty carefully at a certain time in my life and every cell in my body wants to correct his view of what is at issue with the parts he focuses on.

But I wouldn't advance or get a prize if I did that and his fondness for it tells me he wouldn't advance or get a prize if I argued with him.

So I let it ride.

[Taomeow]

uhh, i thought their post was very on-topic

 

fight over philosophy, fight over religion

 

or was your thread intended for something else?

 

Is that how you read Grigoriy's contribution?

 

Well, maybe it was the correct way to read it that I wasn't aware of. His was a short post open to interpretations, which may excuse my error if I didn't get it right. I thought he pointed out the pointlessness of introducing the incident, compared to larger, more burning issues at stake that I should have addressed but failed to, swayed by the cheap sensationalism of the media, that kind of a deal.

 

While in fact I introduced it as an aside to years of philosophical debate at TTB and other spiritually/philosophically inclined forums, chiefly aiming it at those who were part of it. And I'm sure they got a good chuckle out of it.

[xor]

I also read Grigory's post as just an observation.

[Marblehead]

I read Kant pretty carefully at a certain time in my life and every cell in my body wants to correct his view of what is at issue with the parts he focuses on.

Although I never read Kant, I had a like experience. He totally turned me off even before I finished the preface to the first book of his I picked up and was going to read. Some adventures never get started.

[thelerner]

Some can, some Kant.

 

 

Its perpetually amazing and ironic how philosophical discussions get heated and personal so fast. Here on the bums we've had many threads, particularly those on Compassion go down in flames into The Pit.

 

Maybe its easier to take insults to your family, religion, country then when someone attacks your Truth.

[Marblehead]

... then when someone attacks your Truth.

That is exactly where it's at.

 

To destroy one's Truth is to destroy their total purpose in life. We must have our truths! If our roots are not deep enough one's truths can be destroyed. Thereby one's entire life comes into question. Personally, I don't think we need that in our life.

 

Sure, remain open-minded (Some here likely think I am not) so that if we do see a flaw in our truths we can make adjustments.

[Brian]

Our "Truths" are the framework for the belief system we adopt or create to provide context for our observations and experiences, and to allow for rationalizations of our decisions. Those who most adamantly cling to the idea that their "Truths" are the real ones are the most deluded. It is possible within the context of that framework to begin to see some of the underlying fabric behind the framework but only after one comes to the realization that the framework is NOT the fabric itself. It seems also possible to explode the framework but it appears few psyches survive that experience.

 

At least, that's my belief...

[Marblehead]

Hi Brian,

 

Good post except that I must point out that this is not always true:

Those who most adamantly cling to the idea that their "Truths" are the real ones are the most deluded.

That is why there exists, or have existed, people we call Sages.

[Brian]

Hi Brian,

 

Good post except that I must point out that this is not always true:

That is why there exists, or have existed, people we call Sages.

 

Agreed. Not sure the word "sage" is strong enough, in my mind, but that's semantics. (Sage, buddha, messiah, poobah, whatever -- they seem exceedingly rare.)

[Marblehead]

Agreed. Not sure the word "sage" is strong enough, in my mind, but that's semantics. (Sage, buddha, messiah, poobah, whatever -- they seem exceedingly rare.)

Yeah, I think we can consider the word "Sage" to be generic without defining any particular path or "truth".

[hydrogen]

Our "Truths" are the framework for the belief system we adopt or create to provide context for our observations and experiences, and to allow for rationalizations of our decisions. Those who most adamantly cling to the idea that their "Truths" are the real ones are the most deluded.

 

As long as they "support" my "truths", I don't see any problem.

 

In my mom's world "I help you with your dream, you help me build mine."

[Brian]

As long as they "support" my "truths", I don't see any problem.

 

In my mom's world "I help you with your dream, you help me build mine."

 

Nope, I don't see a problem, either. In fact, life is easier whilst one is comfortably deluded and those glimpses of the fabric underneath tend to be disquieting.

[Brian]

Yeah, I think we can consider the word "Sage" to be generic without defining any particular path or "truth".

 

I would suggest, additionally, that the sages are the ones who survived having their frameworks ripped away.

[Marblehead]

WoW! Brian,

 

You are on a roll. Keep it up!

[Brian]

OK, one last thought and I'm done (for now, in this thread, maybe...)

 

The revelation of that fabric in its entirety is necessarily shocking & disruptive, and is somewhat similar in nature to the cognitive dissonance that sets up the double-bind which triggers a paradigm shift at LIII in Bateson's hierarchy in that both are likely to shatter the psyche and tumble the person towards a schizophrenic state. Few make it through.

 

(This is NOT to say that schizophrenics are enlightened, mind you! I'm only saying that it appears to me the "enlightened ones" must traverse that ground...)

 

Those not aware of the constructed frameworks are unable to grasp the sage's knowingly feeble attempts to convey in words the "Truth" now understood. The sage knows this in advance but also knows that some will benefit from these attempts and so prefaces comments with a disclaimer ("the truth which can be spoken is not the truth" or whatever) and then valiantly tries to express a tiny portion of "the Truth."

 

Invariably, those words are misunderstood by good people and deliberately twisted by bad people and bent into religious dogma that bears little resemblance to the Truth. Small nuggets can be gleaned out by the sincere seeker, however, and those who become aware of the framework and begin to glimpse the underlying fabric are perhaps taking baby-steps towards their own personal revelation of Truth. The seeker's framework becomes more transparent and this increased transparency not only makes the sage's words more meaningful but also lessens the shock of revelation, should such a revelation come. The revelation is not a stepwise logical process of discovery, however, and is necessarily jarring and non-intellectual -- an abrupt tearing-off of a scab rather than a gentle healing.

 

But I talk too much...

[Marblehead]

But I talk too much...

Maybe you should have stopped while you were ahead?

 

(I understand what you said but you sure made it complicated.)

[Brian]

Yep. Knew that I would, and that I was, and that I had to do it anyways. A dim reflection of the sage's dilemma, I suppose -- a frustrated attempt to describe a fragment of a glimpse of the fabric beneath...

[Marblehead]

... and that I had to do it anyways.

Reminds me of the question: "Why did you do that?"

 

Answer: "Because I could."