It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Is there no room in the religion section for our topics about God, reincarnation and mystical experiences?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.