Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

a reply to: earthling42

Not every thought is a result of physical experience. Mozart wrote music that was never heard before, Da Vinci painted scenes that had no place in the physical world. Our thoughts may be influenced by the physical world but the opposite is equally as true.

a reply to: Bluesma

It's good to know that some find intellect sexy, but as you said, maybe it is actually the power that people find appealing.

I think seeking advantage isn't a motive of true philosophy, but is an aspect of sophistry. I would argue that the uilization of philosophical inquiry to attain power isn't philosophy, but I'm on mobile and have big thumbs. When I return from travels I'll write it out.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: earthling42
What about those who lost their memory due to a stroke or amnesia or an accident?
My father had amnesia due to a stroke, occasionally he was somewhat clear, but most of the time he had trouble to find the words let alone function normally because 5 minutes later he would forget what he was going to do or had done.

How is your father now? Has he recovered enough to be able to tell you how he felt during the time when he had no memory?
Jill Bolte-Taylor (a neuroanatomist ) had a stroke and says she was in a blissful state when there was no memory of 'her life' - no emotional baggage - she described it as nirvana. 'Nirvana' means the snuffing out of the person (the identified individual) - ego death.
If you have never seen this video it is well worth a watch to hear Jill recount what she experienced when having a stroke from the inside.

That is exactly what such states amount to—pathology.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
(....)
In order to tell the difference between the pseudo-philosopher and the philosopher, we might apply something like Plato’s distinction. The philosopher philosophizes to learn; the sophist philosophizes for less-than-virtuous reasons such as fame, advantage and most of all, power. The philosopher utilizes the universal tools anyone can use, keeping truth in the public domain; the sophist hides his toolbox in the inner-realm of his subjectivity and play-acting. Behind the philosopher is a breadcrumb trail to his conclusions, whereupon anyone can criticize. Behind the pseudo philosopher lies no such trail, and criticism is strictly forbidden.

It would be sophistical of me to provide a definition of philosophy—and you'll be quick to raise that objection—but knowing the company I keep here, I do not feel all that bad about it. We’ll keep the definitions economical: philosophy is the love of wisdom and pseudo-philosophy is the love of one’s own wisdom. Philosophy is the use of wisdom to arrive at truth. Pseudo-philosophy is the use of wisdom to arrive at personal advantage.

I suggest we return to philosophy and metaphysics, or we band together and advocate for a new board, Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism, at least so we can refrain from trampling all over human history.

I'm not a philosopher in any official capacity, but in my past I always found it easier to relate to philosophers moreso than religious umm saints. And of course I usually like to read Les's posts, mostly because he's grumpy and disagreeable and somehow that attracts me to him.

The first bolded part is obvious to me what I am. I "philosophize" or whatever that's to arrive at truth. There's no doubt about that. I want the truth. We're all truth seekers, aren't we?

The second bolded part leads me to believe I'm a sophist. The reason I say I enjoy my own wisdom is because I've never enjoyed reading what someone else says. It's like work to me. And it always comes across as dogmatic. I feel like I'm the student and they want me to accept everything they say without questioning it, like it's a law of the universe. It's much more fun to think my own thoughts and figure things out, no matter how clumsy or ineffective I am on my own. It might be wiser to listen to others, but it's not funner. If I don't do it on my own, i can't trust it either.

I'll say then I'm 50% (unofficial) philosopher and 50% sophist.

I think the only philosphical truth I'd say exists and be able to say I did the thought on my own was "I think therefore I am." I'm not sure who said that, but I know I've heard it on shows and read it. So it did not originate with me. However, ti's one of the few if the only pieces of wisdom that I can confidently carry. Usually, when I read what someone else has wrote or stated, I cannot agree because I either have not acquired that level of wisdom yet or never will for different reasons.

I guess either I don't understand what other philosophers write and so cannot manufacture the corresponding wisdom or since I value my own wisdom so much I cannot take anything someone else gives me. Maybe it's a trust issue? I was a christian at one time. God told me what to think. The bible told me what to think. And so on. Now that I'm no longer a christian, I don't want to be told what to think. It's my own journey.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Thanks for sharing, she is quite passionate about it which is understandable considering what she has gone through.

He past away two years ago due to cancer.
the first stroke he got was in 2005 and slowly but certainly his condition improved, he referred to not knowing where or who he was, simply an unknowing state, after it got better he would sometimes get angry because he felt locked up in his body, not being able to convey what he wanted to say or do.
So no blissful state on his side, he had another stroke 4 years ago and didn't recover really from it, but at times especially after a good rest, he would have moments of clarity.

a reply to: jonnywhite

That's interesting you point that out. Plato was wholly opposed to sophism (in the classical sense), yet he was very sophistical. Sophism has taken on a different meaning since platos time, but his distinction is still relevant. Sophism can be used to argue untruths, so that even the most powerful will believe it. That's the danger he saw in it.

Would it disappoint you to know that I'm actually not grumpy, but a fun loving individual?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jonnywhite

That's interesting you point that out. Plato was wholly opposed to sophism (in the classical sense), yet he was very sophistical. Sophism has taken on a different meaning since platos time, but his distinction is still relevant. Sophism can be used to argue untruths, so that even the most powerful will believe it. That's the danger he saw in it.

Would it disappoint you to know that I'm actually not grumpy, but a fun loving individual?

The other quote from your OP is:

I suggest we return to philosophy and metaphysics, or we band together and advocate for a new board, Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism, at least so we can refrain from trampling all over human history.

Now that statement I can somewhat agree with. The past is filled with wisdom, why not? It has to be, if it happened the way it's claimed. Just as there was "science" before the scientific method and amazing inventions before most people even knew that word, there's wisdom in our past which has built up over time. There must be. And I know there're many people in the past who shared many of our likenesses. They were like us but existing decades or centuries or millenia in the past. It would be foolish to not hear them out. I'm humble enough! (I think)

But it's still funner to create wisdom on my own. This is why I'm 50% sophist. Reading what others write or listening to them is boring. And I get angry when I disagree. Philosophy is like politics to me. It's not just a story which I can happily read page after page. However, stories can be bad too if the writer talks too much or tells things instead of showing them.

It's the telling and preaching and proclaiming and prognosticating and so on which gets me angry but is inevitable and so tiring and just not fun. People can be right when they dictate said truths, but it wears on me.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is knowing at the base of it, formulating the notes is somewhat creative but not something new.
Now if Da vinci had painted an aircraft, that would have been quite creative and new.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My point is that just about anything can be used in different ways. You can use a hammer to crush in the skull of someone, or to build them a shelter - the hammer remains the same thing.

Seeking of knowledge can be done for various reasons too.

I personally think the will to power is a drive all humans have. Even understanding truth procures a sense of power. The unknown provokes experience of powerlessness, that we seek to change.

It's just that some people want to have acknowledgement from others that the wisdom they have "found" or exposed is, in fact, the truth of what was hidden - and some people are content without it.

a reply to: Bluesma

It's just that some people want to have acknowledgement from others that the wisdom they have "found" or exposed is, in fact, the truth of what was hidden - and some people are content without it.

Well I would suggest that is more rare than you project it to be. My feeling is the majority of people who share wisdom gained from personal insight are not seeking acknowledgement but trying to share in order to help others.

I think some of this can be put down to the mode of communication (writing/Internet). It often seems like people are debating with themselves moreso than with each other. I can see it in this thread just as I can see elsewhere on forums.

I recall reading that Socrates believed the written word was totally inferior to verbal dialogue, at least where philosophy and debate is concerned. I can certainly understand why he believed that.

originally posted by: Talorc
I recall reading that Socrates believed the written word was totally inferior to verbal dialogue, at least where philosophy and debate is concerned. I can certainly understand why he believed that.

It's only because they didn't have emoticons back then!

There is no such thing as a real objective distinction from philosophy and pseudo-philosophy.
It's only the ego judging other peoples thoughts.

If someone thought of the quote : "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." before hearing it from Aristotle, his thought would be just as philosophical than Aristotle's thought.

There's just too much judgement done by self proclaimed philosophers.
A philosopher's sophist is the next sophist's philosopher.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bluesma

It's just that some people want to have acknowledgement from others that the wisdom they have "found" or exposed is, in fact, the truth of what was hidden - and some people are content without it.

Well I would suggest that is more rare than you project it to be. My feeling is the majority of people who share wisdom gained from personal insight are not seeking acknowledgement but trying to share in order to help others.

You got confused about what I said - but perhaps one had to read the posts I made before it, I was not clear enough.

Forming philosophical theories only from knowledge within the public domain (exoteric) is what I referenced as a need to have your view acknowledged or confirmed by others.

People who form their philosophy based upon esoteric knowledge (subjective experience) need less confirmation from others,(no one else can acknowledge your subjective experience).

(I can't believe you are getting stars for twisting what I wrote to the exact opposite of what I said)

That too, can be used in various ways. To help, or especially, rescue, others is a way of having power over them. The tyrant and the white knight are both power roles, though traditionally considered the "bad" use of power and the "good" use of it.

a reply to: Bluesma

Forming philosophical theories only from knowledge within the public domain (exoteric) is what I referenced as a need to have your view acknowledged or confirmed by others. 

People who form their philosophy based upon esoteric knowledge (subjective experience) need less confirmation from others,(no one else can acknowledge your subjective experience).

Hmmmm... But what about when one gains esoteric knowledge within the public domain?... And forms philisophical opinions based fon that knowledge?

To help, or especially, rescue, others is a way of having power over them.

Yes, but for their own benefit not yours. If it leaves them disempowered in some way then yes that is a sure sign of manipulation by a power addict on an ego trip.

'Blind men do not see anything. It would be foolish to say nothing exists to them' Quote LM

...because a globe of blind people, would consider the few sighted ones as charlatans...and pseudo-philosophical...it would be as foolish to say to them they could not actually see, and there would be no way to prove this to a blind populace - because obviously it would be trickery, semantics, pseudo-philosophical drivel...we swallow the frequency of red - but you cannot describe the color red to a red-colorblind subject, regardless of the charts you put before them...

Å99

a reply to: earthling42

Yet we do have airplanes, the Wright brothers created something entirely new, something the world had never seen before. From what? Their minds.

The Mona Lisa is something that was devised entirely within the mind of Da Vinci. He had intent and mindful intent can alter the physical world just as the physical world can alter the mind. It's a two way street.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Don't read philosophy from top to toe, you will never find an answer in questions, if you don't open your eyes and ears, you will never find an answer. You are smart, but I've never seen anyone so blind by his own mind.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bluesma



Hmmmm... But what about when one gains esoteric knowledge within the public domain?... And forms philisophical opinions based fon that knowledge?

I'm afraid I would need some help understanding what you mean. There isn't much esoteric information that is collectively accepted objective facts of the public domain.
The term itself pretty much describes something as not being so.

Yes, but for their own benefit not yours.

It is a mutual benefit. The rescuer gets to fulfil their inherent will to power as well.

Whether it is "good" or "bad" to play either role is not something I wish to debate. Judge it as you will. (I don't believe in good and evil).
A lot could be said on the subject of manipulation, be it covert, or even subconscious... but that is going a bit too far off topic.
Call it good or bad, egotistical or not, whatever... both kinds of search for knowledge can be used for, or motivated by, either.

originally posted by: earthling42
Now if Da vinci had painted an aircraft, that would have been quite creative and new.

He drew a helicopter.
www.leonardodavincisinventions.com...