Discussions on Philosophy Group

[[Ha...]]

Good philosophical question Lobo 

 

Politics, philosophy, religion, science, math etc. can often lead to awful misinterpretations and consequent nasty bantering. Each speak a different "language" but don't realize there are common threads (they interconnect and by nature are recursive). So please let us not fall into such a trap 

 

Kpin went to so much trouble writing his post. I feel sad that he thought it nonsense.

 

I read his post and Ziki's blog. It appeared (to me) Kpin was grappling with various quandaries. Kpin, you covered a lot of “territory” so it became a little "entangled" but that's ok isn't it? How can we "simplify" the complex, that's the fun of discussion, particularly regarding "big questions" about life and all it's complexities.

 

Just to dissect Kpin's post and narrow it down. Hope I'm not taking liberties here 

 

You talked of “spooky” things happening in the universe, that the universe is fundamentally interconnected. But as so are our brains which are often confused with being the keeper of the mind, but that’s surely another topic for another time. I am personally exceptionally interested in such a discussion 

 

Your observation of the BB post which seemed to be somewhat ganging up is often seen in the everyday human experience. I think Lobo can relate to what I'm talking about  .

 

Philosophically speaking, can we state such actions are essentially right or wrong? If it is wrong, then it is a question of the author’s true intention. For example was the intention to take a personal swipe, or even perhaps to gang up to gain rank by taking advantage of gang mentality? Was it a matter of egoic (over) reaction which spiraled? If LeslieAsh’s take on the banter was viewed as a natural occurrence which happens within lively discussions, she has interpreted the banter as normal and reasonable. Yet another person may have interpreted the same as immoral. Neither perspective is necessarily right or wrong, but a question of personal awareness and perspective but much more importantly, the real intention which underpins the banter. BTW I'm taking a subjective view not an absolute view here.

 

Not wishing to give a history lesson here but perhaps we need to consider a base point? Like Lobo said "what is the purpose?"

 

I realize this is a simplistic view and not intended to belittle anything mentioned.

 

Thanks to the Greeks, Philosophy was rooted in making sense of “life”, of our world. For example, Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum included studies involving poetry, art, science, mathematics, astronomy etc. So, all these disciplines began under the umbrella of philosophy. They naturally parted ways, one seeing the necessity to explain “life” empirically, the other became a matter of contemplation and attempting to answer (in the sense of) “let’s get our heads around these huge subjective questions”.

 

Philosophy tackles human conduct (one of the quandaries Kpin brought up via a BB post), the nature of beauty (as we discussed earlier beauty v sublime), the nature of what is real, and what is knowledge, the nature of ethics and the nature of the universe and our relationship to all the above.

 

So when you say Kpin (I’m paraphrasing) “the things that are owned to interpretations found in QM are things that are ritually happening in our brains in daily life, one we find “spooky” the other not.” It is a reasonable question! Why is one considered spooky and the other not? A wild guess is everything from the micro to macro (us included) are self-regulating, self-organizing. An example is from conception of a human. How does it know how to develop from a couple of cells, divide and ultimately develop into a complex being, having the capacity of reflection and introspection. Another, how do our bodies know how to self-regulate without "us" even being consciously aware of what is going on or even how it so brilliantly self-regulates. Many would say regulated by the brain, but even then, how does the brain know how to regulate and organize such complexities? When you think about such phenomena that too is “spooky”.

 

The “collective hallucinations” is an ethical question and fits well within philosophical discussion, in that it evokes so many questions. I think it was Socrates (via Plato) who posed such ethical questions. He considered self-awareness to be the essential good, because the person who is self-aware will  better grasp what is “right” for both himself (or herself) and those who they relate to. I think he must have been the forerunner of mindfulness as we know today.

 

We observe in life many quandaries and contradictions difficult to reconcile, (whether it be the human condition, QM v classical physics, mob mentality etc.) which may be both “right” and “wrong” simultaneously. It's a matter of discussion  Harmonee

 

[[...]]

Many words describe harmony.

[[...]]

The harmonic series is the only thing that stands up to scrutiny.

[[Ha...]]

Many words describe harmony.

Is there a finite number?

The harmonic series is the only thing that stands up to scrutiny.

As in the sense that (mathematically) it diverges?

[[Be...]]

Poem I wrote many years ago during spring break from college and lying on the beach, knowing I had alot of schoolwork waiting for me when I went back to school and knowing how tiring it all was and wondering if it was all a waste of time; much prefering the sensual relaxing life.  It was before computers when we wrote our schoolwork in pen.

 

Tug of War

 

Sun, wind, water, and me

Lying on the beach.

Pythagoras, Melville, penning,

Tugging.

One easily falls across the dividing line.

Sensual, instinctual

Create, sublimate.

[[Ha...]]

Hi Becksblue Hope you got good grades for that one!! Where do you think the dividing line is/was? 

[[Be...]]

I wrote a poem about my one philosophy class, but I don't know where it is.  I really disliked that course.  I could not wrap my head around any of those philosophers' ideas:  ghost inside the machine, Plato stuff, etc.  So many differing ideas about our nature.  Harmonee, don't understand that question about the center line.  The poem just speaks about how I would rather not use my mind while on this earth, and that the DESIRE to relax and feel good always wins the war. 

[Guest [Kp...]]

Good philosophical question Lobo 

 

Politics, philosophy, religion, science, math etc. can often lead to awful misinterpretations and consequent nasty bantering. Each speak a different "language" but don't realize there are common threads (they interconnect and by nature are recursive). So please let us not fall into such a trap 

 

Kpin went to so much trouble writing his post. I feel sad that he thought it nonsense. ...

 

Harmonee, simply outstanding post!  I'm quite speechless. I was going to talk about self-organisation in my next post and here you have written all that I was thinking about but hesitant to compose. I think saying I agree with each and every word of what you have said will not be enough. But nevertheless, I will respond to your post in detail later. I am in a setback right now as I approach the close of my taper. I should feel better in a day or two and I will then respond.

[[az...]]

Alright guys, break my heart... I’m gonna follow now.

[[az...]]

As per the neuroscientist Semir Zeki, the beauty that a mathematician perceives in numbers and the beauty that a painter perceives in colours are the same event. It is not possible to delineate mathematical beauty from the visual or musical kind. To him, it only means that in each case, the orbitofrontal cortex, the part of the brain that processes beauty, is over active. It also does not seem to be the case that only gifted mathematicians, scientists or artists are privileged with constant activity in this part of the brain. I think he implies that beauty is accessible to and enjoyed by every brain. His research also implies that it is possible that in future we could completely take over the activity of that part of the brain and artificially induce feelings of beauty in it -- not surprising considering our brains are able to record and transmit experiences of beauty through language (like music).

 

But what is interesting, he says, is that there is one particular notion of beauty that is not beauty in a biological sense. It is what is known as the sublime, or "sublime beauty." It triggers activity not in the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain but in the inferior medial frontal gyrus of the brain, a separate area that is primarily responsible for self-reference to create "I" or identity. Things that trigger activity of sublime beauty are sights of mountains, ranges, ocean and the cosmos. It seems that the self retreats or gets reduced to nothing when it tries to perceive itself in such a canvas.

 

Here are the video interviews of Semir Zeki in which he discusses the above: https://www.whyarewehere.tv/people/semir-zeki

[Guest [Kp...]]

Alright guys, break my heart... I’m gonna follow now.

[[Aj...]]

I wrote a poem about my one philosophy class, but I don't know where it is.  I really disliked that course.  I could not wrap my head around any of those philosophers' ideas:  ghost inside the machine, Plato stuff, etc.  So many differing ideas about our nature.  Harmonee, don't understand that question about the center line.  The poem just speaks about how I would rather not use my mind while on this earth, and that the DESIRE to relax and feel good always wins the war.

 

 

You might like Epicurus then....

[[Be...]]

I think quantum mechanics has the the answers to our reality.  I read Amit Goswami's books about it a long time ago and also John Hagelin, PhD, quantum physicist who ran for Pres. of the US in 2000 and 2004.  He claims he's solved the unified field theory.  I much prefer science rather than philosophy.

[[Ha...]]

I much prefer science rather than philosophy.

Hi Beckblue - Often I feel philosophy is simply a matter of semantics, it is nonetheless entertaining and is a great exercise for the brain. There is no doubt QM is amazingly fascinating and to me sublimely demonstrates total connection and integration. If you like John Hagelin, I feel pretty sure you will relate to Dr Dan Siegel. If you feel like it, here is a short clip relating to "integration"

To me this is far more interesting and relevant than semantic "argument/discussion".  Harmonee

[[...]]

It seems to me that Science tries to explain why and what happens.

Philosophy tries to explain why those events matter to me and other sentient beings.

 

[[Be...]]

The QM physicists I read say everything is consciousness and our physical reality is not "hard" at all.  Nothing exists except when you observe it, is what QM speaks about.  So I've gone away from the philosophy stuff. 

[[Es...]]

Read all the posts. Very interesting. My question is. In what way will these discussions improve the quality of our lives. Telos. This is what I’m interested in. Any ideas?

[[az...]]

Read all the posts. Very interesting. My question is. In what way will these discussions improve the quality of our lives. Telos. This is what I’m interested in. Any ideas?

 

Yay, Estee is back and I still agree so far. It's the way I think and have thought about all this for a while too. Once I see a direction or two then I will be tempted to go on more adventures into thinking, but untethered and without specific topic to root a discussion I think it is too broad for me all at once. Always like observing, no matter, but yes I think it could start to feel overwhelming this way but still watching.

[[Es...]]

What I wanted to say in more detail. I’m trying to use philosophy as a tool to improve my way of thinking on a daily basis. Which enhances my quality of life. Whatever that is. I found this concept on one BB blog and I keep wondering how to define it. But IMO, the way we think determines the way we live. Therefore we need to work on our beliefs and thoughts. Which ain’t easy.

 

Since I use philosophy as a tool, I’m now chiefly interested in simple movements of thought like Stoicism or Existentialism. Dealing first of all with human beliefs and condition. I’m using psychology or different religions in the same way. Besides, many psychologists based their concepts on philosophy, like Carl Jung or Albert Ellis.

 

I’m not saying this thread needs to have any goal. However, as it takes on a rather monumental task, which is discussing philosophy. It could appear daunting to many people. Always good to formulate some kind of a "mission statement", which would make the thread more organized and systematic.

 

Everything up to you, Kpin. I don’t want to appear here as some kind of a vicious troll, who disrupts the discussions without bringing in anything new. I wouldn’t be able to run this thread, honestly. So whatever you do with it is fine. I’m happy you started it and I still get drawn to it. As you can see. I love philosophy. But most folks consider it useless nowadays. It makes sense to ask oneself why.

 

These are just my proposals. There is no obligation to do anything about them for anyone. I’m writing this as I’d like this thread to continue and attract people. Nowadays, ppl get interested chiefly in what serves them in one way or another. Maybe we’ll arrive at some conclusions later on.

 

What is interesting, many philosophy graduates cope surprisingly well with life. Even if they don’t continue the academic work. This is sth I’ve always found fascinating.

[[az...]]

Estee I haven't even read your response, because before anything else I want to state for the record that my mind is pretty free and I am fiercely independent in my thinking for the most part, I would say anytime I wasn't I was purposefully allowing something in some way that wasn't coming from my own core unless I am being fooled by my self in some way and so receive a lesson from the physical (external) world that I am off course in some way and allowing myself to be manipulated. This has happened, I am sure it happens in small ways in any day.

 

So, I am not here for egos… I'm here for something I just started to see Estee mentioning about life application.

 

I believe the way we think is so powerful, not in a silly way or any other way than what is true.

 

I haven't really been able to think about this in a way I am comfortable with communicating yet so I am just being "off the cuff," which is a common practice of mine also.

 

In this spirit, I will recommend a book which I think is the most important I have ever read and it is incredibly short: "As A Man Thinketh."

 

This pretty much sums up the most important first part I need to touch on, there may be no need for me to impulsively respond after this.

[[az...]]

Estee I haven't even read your response, because before anything else I want to state for the record that my mind is pretty free and I am fiercely independent in my thinking for the most part, I would say anytime I wasn't I was purposefully allowing something in some way that wasn't coming from my own core unless I am being fooled by my self in some way and so receive a lesson from the physical (external) world that I am off course in some way and allowing myself to be manipulated. This has happened, I am sure it happens in small ways in any day.

 

So, I am not here for egos… I'm here for something I just started to see Estee mentioning about life application.

 

I believe the way we think is so powerful, not in a silly way or any other way than what is true.

 

I haven't really been able to think about this in a way I am comfortable with communicating yet so I am just being "off the cuff," which is a common practice of mine also.

 

In this spirit, I will recommend a book which I think is the most important I have ever read and it is incredibly short: "As A Man Thinketh."

 

This pretty much sums up the most important first part I need to touch on, there may be no need for me to impulsively respond after this.

 

So pretty much what I am saying is I am out if this is an ego battle too, and please don't assume anything about me before you hear it in simple language or it is so blazingly obvious to everyone else but me and this is obvious-- please just say something in this situation-- otherwise my mind is completely free, or darn near close and I believe entirely capable of being…

 

so don't assume shit about me please before I say what I am really thinking. Just because I compliment one person or one post or point does not mean anything beyond the context of me speaking.

 

Love,

me.

 

And if this is my ego, so be it-- let's get this kind of thing out of the way.

 

My statement stands that my thinking is free, if it presents otherwise then I can't help you. I have to just say this stuff because it bothers me, and I am tired of thinking about things that bother me which I feel I "can't" say.

 

So I can think.

 

Because even though I try to stand by my word, I need to be true to myself first of all. In order to do this I feel the need to break down strongholds which seem to follow me wherever I go and I run up against constantly of others perceiving something and judging this and stating that and assuming this… and on and on.

[[Es...]]

I don’t think philosophy is concerned with the battle of egos. Ego is a more psychological, Freudian concept.

 

I would ask myself this question: do I want philosophy to serve me or to destroy me? Cause it can well do both. Each and everyone of us has our own philosophical systems. Whether we studied it, had it at the uni or never read philosophy.

 

For anyone even vaguely interested in philosophy, I would recommend this book. It’s written in a very simple language.

 

I like this quote by Aristotle: "Knowing thyself is the beginning of all wisdom." Without it, we really cannot move even one step further. I guess none of us is really good at it, as we all ended up on this forum. Benzo dependence is a disease like any other. But it’s not only a disease of the body. It’s also a disease of the mind and soul. It results from the fact that we knew very little about ourselves. As we were unable to deal with our own emotions. Or still are.

 

Can we use philosophy to help us recover from this disease? If so, how? This is what I keep asking myself.

 

Or will philosophy make us even more sick? It may, if used inappropriately. This is an inherent danger of philosophy. Also of many religions. I don’t think psychology presents such a danger. Some claim psychoanalysis does. I disagree.

 

Anyway, I would never dare to talk about philosophy without taking psychology into account.

 

I do hope our contributions will be helpful, Kpin. It would be great to turn this thread into a dialogue instead of a set of monologues. A dialogue would be beneficial to us all.

 

The philosophical concepts and jargon are difficult and obscure. It would make sense IMO to attach links to simple explanations whenever possible.

[[az...]]

I don’t think philosophy is concerned with the battle of egos. Ego is a more psychological, Freudian concept.

 

I would ask myself this question: do I want philosophy to serve me or to destroy me? Cause it can well do both. Each and everyone of us has our own philosophical systems. Whether we studied it, had it at the uni or never read philosophy.

 

For anyone even vaguely interested in philosophy, I would recommend this book. It’s written in a very simple language.

 

I like this quote by Aristotle: "Knowing thyself is the beginning of all wisdom." Without it, we really cannot move even one step further. I guess none of us is really good at it, as we all ended up on this forum. Benzo dependence is a disease like any other. But it’s not only a disease of the body. It’s also a disease of the mind and soul. It results from the fact that we knew very little about ourselves. As we were unable to deal with our own emotions. Or still are.

 

Can we use philosophy to help us recover from this disease? If so, how? This is what I keep asking myself.

 

Or will philosophy make us even more sick? It may, if used inappropriately. This is an inherent danger of philosophy. Also of many religions. I don’t think psychology presents such a danger. Some claim psychoanalysis does. I disagree.

 

Anyway, I would never dare to talk about philosophy without taking psychology into account.

 

I do hope our contributions will be helpful, Kpin. It would be great to turn this thread into a dialogue instead of a set of monologues. A dialogue would be beneficial to us all.

 

The philosophical concepts and jargon are difficult and obscure. It would make sense IMO to attach links to simple explanations whenever possible.

 

I beg to differ- ideally it's not, but in reality I think this is a large part of the difficulty in it's discussion.

[[Es...]]

Could you clarify, Azalea? I don’t quite get what you mean. I’m afraid Ajusta is not the only one who feels a bit retarded here Do you think ppl want to appear "wise" on this thread? I don’t think so. Philosophy uses a specific jargon and system of concepts. It has nothing to do with being "wise". Some ppl can articulate their thoughts in a more accessible way. Others may have difficulty doing it.

I don’t see any "ego thing" here.

 

I do think Kpin is a very smart guy. However, he may have some difficulty presenting his thoughts in a simple way. It has nothing to do with the ego. Ppl get so preoccupied with the content - specific ideas. That they lose the sense of the form -  simplicity of the language to present those ideas. But it has nothing to do with the ego. Just my thoughts.

 

Many philosophers spoke in such a complicated way, it drove me mad. I cursed them, yet had to read them. I first read some simple summaries of their theories. It had nothing to do with their egos. That was just the way they formulated their thoughts. Others wrote in a very simple way. Being a philosopher doesn’t necessarily equal being a writer.

[[az...]]

Estee, I haven't detected this necessarily. It was a personal boundary statement and I guess I am really expressive when I'm emotional- at times.

 

I feel so misunderstood,

 

this is my psyche… welcome.