Folk Philosophy

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I used to think that passing mysticism and religion off as philosophy and metaphysics was a phenomena only common to ATS; but the other day while in a new book store, I found the philosophy section to be sadistically fused into some abomination known as the “Philosophy/Mysticism/Occult” section. In this paradox, one would find a book by Greg Braden beside Baudrillard’s Simulcra and Simulation, and right next to a Chomsky sat Deepak Chopra’s superimposed smiling face.

Looking through this forum here, one is more likely to find threads on meditation, altered states of consciousness, lucid dreaming, reincarnation, astral planes and ESP before one finds anything to do with philosophy. Serious philosophy, metaphysics and psychology is frankly absent these topics, but the rise of such obscure unphilosophical, namely religious thinking, might show a growing misunderstanding on what philosophy is, and how disrespectful we are to it.

The philosopher has no use for magics, chakras, and blissful states of consciousness. These interpretations of events are still based on unclear, unreasoned, contradictory and faith-based metaphysical foundations promoted by a yet-to-be-defined, intuition based religious mindset, which seek to negate the very ontological principals that real metaphysicians seek to better explain.

Behind the kundalini exercises, the techniques of meditation, the astral travels and the out-of-body experiences, we find doctrines concerned only with their own desired states of “blissful consciousness,” their dreams, their hedonism, their unintelligible explanations, their abstract sense of spirituality, their anti-reason—their religion—all pondered only through their intuition and revelations, without once appealing to their gifts of reason. In fact, to avoid the skepticism towards their views, maybe out of fear, they will denounce reason, logic, scientific method and philosophy altogether—a position not that different than the one held by the ruling theocratic powers of the dark ages, who claimed such paths to wisdom were too subversive to the prevailing foundations of thought.

Mysticism is not philosophy. Mysticism is religion; religion is ideology; and to ideology, philosophy is very subversive. Even the great Socrates of Plato, to whom western philosophy owes much of its beginnings, was put to death for this subversiveness, for his philosophy. This philosopher was as much of a threat to Athens as a thousand Persian armies. So too is the philosopher to the ideas of the religious, the mystical and the status quo.

There is a giant chasm that separates philosophy and religion, yet we see religious topics under guises of “non-religion,” spirituality and philosophy permeating throughout here and book stores.

Is there no room in the religion section for our topics about God, reincarnation and mystical experiences? Do we need to define what philosophy is before we let religion weasel its way back into our hearts and minds?

There are some great introductions to philosophy out there for further reading:
History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel
The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant
..and many more.

Let's not undue 2500 years of philosophical progress.
edit on 11-3-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
good thread.

I think mysticism was proto-philosophy until a small percent of thinkers through history(example: Plato, Descartes, Socrates. the list goes on) started to whittle away at the folk lore and myth. It wasn't easy to change a world that was largely uneducated beyond trying to survive. it's easier to try to and escape the harsh realities through mysticism and religion with all it's promises of cessation of pain or the guidance of a loving unseen hand.

Logic and introspection are not for the weak or lazy. It takes a lot of effort and intense focus to really look into things objectively. To submit to the harsh facts of life and how to navigate without it destroying your psyche takes discipline that many aren't willing to work for. The rewards are there but you'll have to be willing change your ideas of what a reward is. I'll admit its depressing and liberating at the same time.

btw , i'm grateful that most bookstores near me don't mix western philosophy with new age or religion.
edit on 3/11/2013 by homeskillet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by homeskillet
 

Good response I completely agree.

The book store in question was a mom 'n' pop store, so I wasn't too offended.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I don't know if the thread title quite does this thread justice. I'd simply call it "Real Philosophy." Anyways.

As you probably already know I share your view on what has happened to philosophy in this forum. Week after week I see the same threads about Enlightenment pop in and out, and I crave for more philosophy oriented threads.

I do believe the pursuit of Enlightenment has its place in philosophical discussions. As a Rationalist I believe reason is the source of knowledge, but we can only use reason effectively if we clear our minds. I do believe that Eastern methods of attaining Enlightenment could possibly aid us in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics, but that is only if people make the effort to relate the Enlightenment to philosophy. So far this has rarely happened.

At the same time I understand the reason behind the extremely high concentration of Enlightenment threads in this forum. There are few other forums where Enlightenment threads would be relevant, one of them being the Religion forum, but the Religion forum is notorious for having its threads turn into ignorant flame wars. Conversations in the philosophy forum, on the other hand, are usually fairly thoughtful and civilized.

Enlightenment discussions certainly deserve a place on ATS, since the implied task of denying ignorance is pursuing the truth. So I don't think these threads are the problem, I think there is just a general scarcity of people who take philosophy seriously, and in the mean time these mystical, "soft-philosophy" threads keep this forum active in between the occasional true philosophy post.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have enjoyed reading this.
I have created my own thread with my own philosophies that you may or may not find interesting if you get bored of the ATS subject matter flying around.
Regards



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience
 


Too bad you stuck that all in one thread that could have been good for like six philosophy threads haha



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Is there no room in the religion section for our topics about God, reincarnation and mystical experiences?


First of all, though I understand your objection, I want to point out that this section is called "Philosophy and Metaphysics". In my mind, anyway, that means metaphysical/spiritual type of topics go here too.

Secondly, I am not sure I agree with you. Many distinguished philosophers delved into the nature of reality and went into some very woo-woo type of theories. Especially if we begin talking about subjective reality and perception.

On one hand, I know the frustration one can feel when faced with accusations fro other scientific fields that philosophy is at best a soft-science (said with a sarcastic snear) and at worst a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

Keeping it academic and separate from any doubtful or sketchy areas is an understandable desire in those cases.

But on the other hand....
The gift of studying philosophical thought is learning how to structure and construct theory.
It is learning how to step out of ones own perception, do a tour of another's, and be able to return right back to your own.
It develops a strong and flexible mind, which is essential in daily life and particularly in creation of self.

Our self/ego is a philosophy. It is the way we have framed and structured our conceptions of reality, ourselves, and our relation to others/exterior.

Many psychological problems arise from not being able to do this yourself, or having concepts that are contradicting.

In this modern age, all information has exploded and been made availble to everyone, so you are finding a lot of "poor mans science" everywhere- everyone is a brilliant scientist in their own mind. It's getting mixed up, and some fo it is nonsense. On the other hand, people are getting better and better at this, and I simply think it is time we start looking to integrate the different school together anyway. That is the current theme.

Your proposition is that people separate and compartementalize their experienes that are beyond the mundane.
They let it sit in a corner of their mind as the part of them that is rejected, invalid, evil, wrong, or otherwise just not acceptable. Not to be acknowledged, incorporated into who they are and the experiences that have made them who they are.

I think that has various negative effects upon the psyche and mental health in general. My own atypical experiences I wove into my own personal philosophy- I foudn ways I can fit it in to my perception of reality.
Becaus emy mind is flexible I also do not take my personal view as the universal static truth- it is, quite simply, my theory on reality, and it embraces all the known aspects of reality... it just fills in the unknowns with some possible propostiions that are logical and reasoned.

I think that is just fine. But then I am not basing my self esteem on my being viewed as a academic and respected philosopher- I can see why so many thinking for themselves might seem threatening to someone who does.

Editted to add;
I also find the suggestion that more metaphysical type of thought should be put in the "Religion" section absurd!

"Religion" is an institution which has it's own perception, rituals, morals, ethics, and theory on the nature of reality and members are discouraged to explore their own or learn to use critical thought to form their own.
I have never posted in that forum and do not see why people doing this "personalized philo" would! They are completely opposed!
edit on 12-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


To be fair the term metaphysics didn't start with the paranormal as we see today.


The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define. Twentieth-century coinages like ‘meta-language’ and ‘metaphilosophy’ encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow “goes beyond” physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken. The word ‘metaphysics’ is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up “Aristotle's Metaphysics.” Aristotle himself did not know the word. (He had four names for the branch of philosophy that is the subject-matter of Metaphysics: ‘first philosophy’, ‘first science’, ‘wisdom’, and ‘theology’.) At least one hundred years after Aristotle's death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) entitled those fourteen books “Ta meta ta phusika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical ones”—, the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle's Physics. The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones,” the books about nature or the natural world—that is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world.

plato.stanford.edu...

Philosophy was considered science at one time and Philosophers have had some wacky ideas of how the world works throughout history but that doesn't mean we should regress back to them. I can't remember the source but i think it was from someone who studies the brain and consciousness. They said something along the lines that philosophy is to brain science what theoretical physics is to practical physics.

There is also some practical information in Religion but there's a large portion that just doesn't make any sense. We don't know everything but we've come leaps and bounds. To humor people who take mystical folk stories as real is really just confusing the subject of real, practical philosophy. I understand there are people who claim to have had paranormal or mystical experiences but IMHO i don't think philosophy really covers that. There are plenty of other avenues to go with that such as psychology, brain studies pertaining to perception, memory, imagination etc.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


You make some good points bluesma. I was hoping to get some opposition here.

I'll get some definitions out of the way:


mysticism |ˈmistəˌsizəm|
noun
1 belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2 belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, esp. when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.



philosophy |fəˈläsəfē|
noun ( pl. philosophies )
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
• a set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it: Schopenhauer’s philosophy.
• the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: the philosophy of science.
• a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy.


Mysticism is religious and faith based. So although you may think it absurd to call it that, it is what is the case. And yes, in my opinion, religion isn't philosophy.

What I was pointing out was the difference in method at arriving at 'truths,' and what ultimately separates philosophy with religion is reason based vs intuition based rationality.

Mysticism falls in the later category, where every religion save for perhaps early Buddhism resides. It is based on faith and credulity, having to actually repudiate our own reason to swallow what we are fed. Is that what philosophy is to you?

Philosophy is important enough to me, and I think the world, that it needs defence from those who would seek to water it down, and make it look as if it's a form of religion, where bearded sages sit in caves contemplating the absolute truths. I am willing to sell out and take an elitist stance, if only to avoid seeing it usurped by religious motivation, as it was during the dark ages. Maybe I'm being over protective.

Folk philosophy, like folk psychology, and folk science, though it may bring a rise to general interest in the topic, waters down the field and takes away from those who take it seriously. Philosophy does have a duty, and it's to do away with superstition and ideas that would lead us astray.

On a side note, I recently started reading Slavoj Žižek, and I think he's going to be one of the more important philosophers of our day. There's many lectures on YouTube if you wish to give him a chance. Here's him in bed half naked describing the role of philosophers (I am in agreement):




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


The average person lacks the understanding about what Philosophy is about.

Many people receive a near coincidence with it while someone on a bar stool is trying to play head games with others.

Others, fit research to the point of the discussion about how people love stories. So when someone is telling some absurd metaphysical story that sounds "oh so sweet" and affects the emotions at the level of liking the story or not liking it, they think that somehow they are encountering philosophy when they are encountering pure bullcrap.

Philophasters all...

Philosophers have always noticed that the others "just don't get it", and many have been very troubled by this.

Just remember that it takes a certain type of mindset to even fathom what might be going on. One must have "powers of discernment" which the average person seldom develops, to even begin to be able to sort things out.

I am not surprised nor disturbed by the fact that the common person can't get it and have all these wild beliefs about it. I feel blessed by what philosophy has done for me inwardly, and in the end, that is all it is about.

They are in fact, the common people that is, what every one of the greats say they are, without exception, and the problem is that the common people only prove the philosophers right and never wrong.

As Socrates said: Philosophy is medicine for the Soul in the same way the Physician's prescriptions are medicine for the body.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope




mysticism |ˈmistəˌsizəm|
noun
1 belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2 belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, esp. when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.



Okay, let's look at the definition of "mysterious"

mys·te·ri·ous (m-stîr-s) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or being a mystery: mysterious and infinite truths. 2. Simultaneously arousing wonder and inquisitiveness, and eluding explanation or comprehension: a mysterious visitor; mysterious conduct.

This is EXACTLY what philosophy explores (through contemplation). Things which are as of yet unexplained or indetermined by other sciences. Meaning, ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, the nature of reality, existence, values.....




philosophy |fəˈläsəfē|
noun ( pl. philosophies )
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
• a set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it: Schopenhauer’s philosophy.
• the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: the philosophy of science.
a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy.


These definitions in bold are what I am particularly thinking of when I focus on the personal philosophies of the layman.



Mysticism is religious and faith based.


I disagree. A mystical experience is one of ineffibility, or paradoxical nature (what is surprising or “contrary to expectation.”; atypical, outside of common accepted experience).

One can have mystical experiences without having any religion or faith in any particular belief.

I have a strange experience that is beyond the normal scope of experience..... through contemplation, thought and reason, I come up with a possible way to explain it's nature....I do not have to bring any concept of a deity, nor do I have to have any faith that my reasoning is "true". That is irrelevant in a sense, (until science proves it wrong) because it will be part fo what determines my future choices and acts.
(examples- the concept of collective subconscious, or of a Noosphere, in which all human thought and experience lies)

(I can't help feel a reactional bulking at the usage of the term 'religion'- a religious person has no use for philosophy, or thought at all- it is all determined for them, they have only to read or listen to their religous authorities and do the appropriate actions dictated. They are not the armchair philosophers that are rubbing you the wrong way.)




. It is based on faith and credulity, having to actually repudiate our own reason to swallow what we are fed. Is that what philosophy is to you?

I think I answered some of that above, but I wonder who is "feeding" a person who is writing their own philosophy? I don't quite get that. Especially since academic philosophers feed highly off previous philosophers! They are inspired by them and sometimes elaborate on them, combine their theories, tweak them here or there and call them "mine", but let's not pretend they form their thoughts out of virgin mental space, shall we?

Only a few uneducated and analytic minds might fit that bill....





Folk philosophy, like folk psychology, and folk science, though it may bring a rise to general interest in the topic, waters down the field and takes away from those who take it seriously. Philosophy does have a duty, and it's to do away with superstition and ideas that would lead us astray.


I respect your opinion there. I do not personally hold the same though.

The general public will rarely find any interest in the higher levels of sciences. Reading academic journals, is pretty challenging for the layman... philosophic treaties by the masters can make the normal mans brain explode!
(I'm remembering years ago, checking out books at the library by Heidegger, I think it was, and having my eyes cross while I read the same page over and over and over .. and still not have any friggin' idea what it said!!
)

I've seen the same sort of bastardization with pop psychology, people misusing terms, and ideas. It can be frustrating for one who knows better.

But in terms of philosophy, I remain rather pragmatic- it empowers individuals to create their own structure of vision from which their acts shall flow. With time and practice, they get better and better at it.
Without that skill, they remain the lambs at the mercy of the various predators (both scientific and religious) that wish to impregnate them with their own view.

edit on 12-3-2013 by Bluesma because: s



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


I love your reply Bluesma. Great points.

I agree that anyone can have a mystical experience. I cannot refute that. I've had a few of my own. But it is how they are contemplated, reasoned and expressed which adds to the confusion of such experiences.

Allow me to generalize:

The philosopher will use reason to arrive at the best conclusion, however wrong it may be, based on the idea that it can be explained clearly, without superstition, without abstraction, without thousands of years of religious metaphysics. He follows the arguments where they take him, all the while avoiding contradiction and paradox.

The mystic will confuse things further, arriving at conclusions that sound more pleasing rather than rational, giving him a greater sense of self-importance, while at the same time avoiding logic, reason and scientific method, because in the end they always prove him wrong, or the answers arrived that way simply don't sound cool enough.

I would argue that one methodology is religiously motivated insofar as it seeks to maintain a particular view by blocking the avenues that would turn it on its head; and the other is for open-minded clarity and understanding.

Also, if we look historically at religion, or any ideology that seeks to protect itself by repudiating reason, doubt and skepticism towards it, we find people burned at the stake, charged with blasphemy or forced to recant their views. This mindset should be avoided.

Lastly, I personally think philosophy is very important to human progress. It is a serious discipline; but ask any layman what they think of philosophy and they cannot take it seriously, think it is too lofty or that it is pure navel gazing nonsense. This is an attitude I would seek to change.

Great response, Bluesma.

But I think we might just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I would like to say its the scientist over the philosopher who would be best to examine his mystical experience. I think the philosopher may tend to over think a situation whereas the scientist would take a more controlled look. I also think that's where the mistrust of philosophers comes from. The stereotype of the old man at the Ivy League school pontificating about thought experiments that don't have any obvious real world use. At least to the everyday man.

The problem is that to the everyday person it's easier to trust the folk tales or preacher over both. There's a large divide between people and academia whereas preachers, new age books and the guy at the pub who tells ghost stories are way more accessible.

This video is the perfect example of the scientist who had an experience that could have been mistaken for something it wasn't. She is a neuroscientist who was able to observe her own stroke. For her I would say it was both useful scientifically and "mystically" profound.

edit on 3/12/2013 by homeskillet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by homeskillet
 


I agree here. I think explanation-wise, science has it down to...well...a science. That is why it's so effective. It uses concrete examples, concrete observations, and concrete terminology to express it. It doesn't pass off theory as truth, it is open to new discoveries, new data, and it doesn't resort to poetics or romanticism to express what it observes. It is honest. It just shows us what it sees.


I've seen that video. It's an extraordinary story. And it's especially great to hear about it from someone who can better explain it. It just goes to show how amazing the body is.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
But doesn't most philosophy lead, like modern science, into the domain of the metaphysical whereby our own consciousness and conscious experience cannot be denied i.e.: where we cannot stand apart from ourselves and while pointing at whatever else also point to ourselves and call ourselves a thing or an it? It's it all a matter of one's point of view, where it may be said that context and framing is decisive?

And isn't what I just stated, philosophy, in this case the notion that everything is circular or caught up in a tangled hierarchy in the relation between subject and object (to be is to be perceived)? The only distinction then is this idea that we can talk about reality "at arms length" without also including the qualia of our own personal experience of reality. Isn't it (any attempt at philosophy) then as much a metaphysics of the transcendent without as it is the personal experience of the observer/experiencer "within" if we wish seriously to attempt to adequately describe, even in philosophical terms, the fundamental nature of reality and existence?

One could claim that philosophy treads a higher path and has no truck with metaphysics and psychology (spirituality), but well I would like to actually SEE the philosophy supporting that contention.

That said mystical new agey Deepak Chopra and the quantum principals of the law of attraction, doesn't belong in the same section as Kant and Descartes no that's just not right.

Good thread. S&F!

What does it mean to be free?

All we need do to be philosophers then it to support any contention we make with reason and a well reasoned argument. Simple as that.

There's no need to disparage anyone - only request that they make sense in regards to what they are offering as "truth".

I've now come to realize, in spite of my monicur, that I am really a philosopher in the truest sense, but also one who's not unwilling to adopt a well reasoned argument. Thanks again.


edit on 12-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



But doesn't most philosophy lead, like modern science, into the domain of the metaphysical whereby our own consciousness and conscious experience cannot be denied i.e.: where we cannot stand apart from ourselves and while pointing at whatever else also point to ourselves and call ourselves a thing or an it? It's it all a matter of one's point of view, where it may be said that context and framing is decisive?

And isn't what I just stated, philosophy, in this case the notion that everything is circular or caught up in a tangled hierarchy in the relation between subject and object (to be is to be perceived)? The only distinction then is this idea that we can talk about reality "at arms length" without also including the qualia of our own personal experience of reality. Isn't it (any attempt at philosophy) then as much a metaphysics of the transcendent without as it is the personal experience of the observer/experiencer "within" if we wish seriously to attempt to adequately describe, even in philosophical terms, the fundamental nature of reality and existence?

One could claim that philosophy treads a higher path and has no truck with metaphysics and psychology (spirituality), but well I would like to actually SEE the philosophy supporting that contention.

That said mystical new agey Deepak Chopra and the quantum principals of the law of attraction, doesn't belong in the same section as Kant and Descartes no that's just not right.

Good thread. S&F!

What does it mean to be free?

All we need do to be philosophers then it to support any contention we make with reason and a well reasoned argument. Simple as that.

There's no need to disparage anyone - only request that they make sense in regards to what they are offering as "truth".

I've now come to realize, in spite of my monicur, that I am really a philosopher in the truest sense, but also one who's not unwilling to adopt a well reasoned argument. Thanks again.


I always knew you were a philosopher New Age Man. You couldn't fool me for a second.

I actually think psychology and metaphysics are perfect for in the realm of philosophy, except that much of religion's metaphysics and psychology has weaken them as areas of study for philosophy. It's difficult to even take them serious anymore, but they should be taken seriously, maybe even redefined and re-established away from the dogmas already present.

Philosophy is definitely a personal pursuit. Philosophy cannot even be defined its so subjective. I want to see it practiced by everyone, but seriously. It is only my wish to see it back in its rightful place as an important artform—the most important artform. I don't wish to see it lost to the culture it is meant to inspire.

It's an elitest stance I realize, but for some reason it means a lot to me.

Thanks for reading, sir. Great points.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 

Thanks for your kind words, that's a relief.. ('cause I haven't always been the nicest person in relation to you as you know..)


Lately I've been working on what can only be called the humor of understanding, as a logical and exceedingly reasonable premise based on the distinction of authentic vs. inauthentic and my oh my is it ever amusing and intriguing as a philosophical inquiry.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



Thanks for your kind words, that's a relief.. ('cause I haven't always been the nicest person in relation to you as you know..)


It's to be expected. LesMisanthrope is negative, confrontational and stubborn. He's designed to get under skin. But, avatars feel no pain.



Lately I've been working on what can only be called the humor of understanding, as a logical and exceedingly reasonable premise based on the distinction of authentic vs. inauthentic and my oh my is it ever amusing and intriguing as a philosophical inquiry.


Would you mind explaining further if you have the chance? Maybe conceive a thread? I like the sounds of it already.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by homeskillet
 


science has it down to...well...a science. That is why it's so effective. It uses concrete examples, concrete observations, and concrete terminology to express it. It doesn't pass off theory as truth, it is open to new discoveries, new data, and it doesn't resort to poetics or romanticism to express what it observes. It is honest. It just shows us what it sees.


Just curious about something. Who were the people that claimed the world was flat? Who are the people that say civilization has only existed for 7 thousand years? How did "primitive" people build Pyramids that are more "technologically" advanced than what the current civilization can do. These are just some questions i asked myself when it comes to the "religion of science".



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by homeskillet
 


I've seen that lecture before- love it!

Now you approach the part of philosophy that you will see many people argue- that the philosopher can float off into thought that pulls away from fact and physicality in the same way that religious or "mystical" ideas can!

A good philosopher can convince you (and himself) that a turd smells like roses. All with very logical and reasoned structure.

My stepfather is a respected phd, in Philosophy, a professor in a State University and head of their Humanities division for many many years. I adore him and do not want to bad mouth him, but he has an amazing way of seeming smarter than he is. People end up worshipping him, though in reality he lacks an amazing amount of common sense and emotional intelligence.

This may be a natural by-product of developing certain parts of the mind over others, so can't be avoided.
Perhaps the price to pay is a certain inability to keep your feet on the ground?

Watching this is partly what motivates me to have a cautious attitude about going too far into reason, just as I do about going to far into mysticism.
I flirt with both lightly, in creative thought-emotion at times, as an exercise, but have a repulsion to the extremes.
edit on 13-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join