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.

 

To Vilify the Ego

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



I was specifically referring to your statement "Whereas the non-rationalists seem quite keen on believing anything they can imagine to be real, regardless of whether or not it actually exists outside of their imaginations."

This is a close-minded presumption - and makes me even less interested in carrying on any conversation with you.


That just proves my point. I've obviously expressed my disinterest in anything that cannot be proven to occur outside of the imagination, and you express your disinterest in conversing with me. What other conclusion can I reach, but that you are uninterested in discussing anything outside of the imagination?




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Close to 10 pages of debate and no one has been convinced of anything. I am starting to see the futility...


If you are expecting that others should abandon their own sense of reason to embrace another's perspective, then I agree this is a futile debate.

On the other hand, if the aim is to deepen understanding and eliminate misunderstanding, then it has its purpose.

Futility is in the eye of the beholder, and dare I say is an experience of ego?
edit on 22-5-2013 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
That just proves my point. I've obviously expressed my disinterest in anything that cannot be proven to occur outside of the imagination, and you express your disinterest in conversing with me. What other conclusion can I reach, but that you are uninterested in discussing anything outside of the imagination?
LOL! How about the pages and pages and pages of explanations I have already engaged with you?

Presume as you will, AI, imagine as you must.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Generally-speaking, on this Philosophy Forum, there seems to be rationalists that require basically scientific proof of everything, even to admit that there is anything deeper than the conceptual/perceptual brain-mind complex. So I have found, after many attempts, that there is little use in discussing anything esoteric with such rationalists. They simply are not interested in anything that does not fit in with the fundamental myth that one is the body-mind.


Philosophy is about following the argument where it takes us. First, an argument is needed in order to go anywhere.


Argument:
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong: there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal | [ with clause ] : he rejected the argument that keeping the facility would be costly.


If one cannot formulate an argument, or claims the topic is too ineffable to articulate, he must therefor not have anything to say on the topic and should remain silent.

This isn't about rationality vs. irrationality, it is about explaining our ideas using language that is accessible and understandable. If I was to write the entire OP using mystical terminology and words that point at nothing, it would be difficult for anyone to follow my train of thought.

The reason there is still philosophical idealism, mind/body dualism, and God in philosophy—somewhat esoteric ideas— is because they have been argued quite rationally by many philosophers. It is because they formed logical arguments and appealed to reason. This can be done by anyone.

Being unable to form a reasonable argument is actually quite telling.

edit on 22-5-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

If you are expecting that others should abandon their own sense of reason to embrace another's perspective, then I agree this is a futile debate.


The only reason wars happen, ever, right there.



On the other hand, if the aim is to deepen understanding and eliminate misunderstanding, then it has its purpose.


That was my goal.



Futility is in the eye of the beholder, and dare I say is an experience of ego?


Well, seeing as a 10 page debate had absolutely no effect on anyone's beliefs... I would say that there are obviously those things which are absolutely futile.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 
Yes, but the argument that one is not the body-mind, but is fundamental awareness, is based on self-evident understanding and recognition. The argument that rationalists use to say one is the body-mind is also not provable, but apparently is self-evident to them.

And so, after pages and pages of this consideration, and on many threads, nothing has changed and when such well-considered arguments against this notion of one being the body-mind is summarily dismissed as just one's imagination, then it is time to move on, at least in my opinion.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


You know, I'm struck with quite the impression that you are more susceptible to your own ego than you let on. The fact that you refuse to consider any alternative explanations is very much evidence of this.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Yes, but the argument that one is not the body-mind, but is fundamental awareness, is based on self-evident understanding and recognition. The argument that rationalists use to say one is the body-mind is also not provable, but apparently is self-evident to them.


I am my body, and my body is me. I am not just awareness. Everything I have seen and experienced, I have my body to thank for. There is nothing that I know that my body did not allow me to experience. That is provable. All you have to do is cut off your arm and watch your awareness easily compensate for it. Or maybe cut off your legs. Or maybe remove your head. I mean, your body isn't necessary, is it? Surely you wouldn't suffer if you became a vegetable or a paraplegic.

Unless, of course...your body does things that your awareness cannot?

edit on 22-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Would you be able to convince Buddha of the realist viewpoint? Of course not. Does that make him egoistic? Of course not! He knows what he knows, independent of any sort of outside biased 'belief'. Now, that does not mean I am less susceptible to the ego than anyone else. It does, however, mean I am more conscious of it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by bb23108
 



Yes, but the argument that one is not the body-mind, but is fundamental awareness, is based on self-evident understanding and recognition. The argument that rationalists use to say one is the body-mind is also not provable, but apparently is self-evident to them.


I am my body, and my body is me. I am not just awareness. Everything I have seen and experienced, I have my body to thank for. There is nothing that I know that my body did not allow me to experience. That is provable. All you have to do is cut off your arm and watch your awareness easily compensate for it. Or maybe cut off your legs. Or maybe remove your head. I mean, your body isn't necessary, is it? Surely you wouldn't suffer if you became a vegetable or a paraplegic.

Unless, of course...your body does things that your awareness cannot?

edit on 22-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Body may be able to see sights and hear sounds, but awareness created a universe in which that was possible, and then a body in which the former is possible.

Not to mention that pure awareness is infinite bliss, something you cannot experience with a physical body.
edit on 22-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Yes, but the argument that one is not the body-mind, but is fundamental awareness, is based on self-evident understanding and recognition. The argument that rationalists use to say one is the body-mind is also not provable, but apparently is self-evident to them.


For the latter, it actually is quite provable. I mean look around. The evidence is overwhelming. For the former, there is nothing but the thoughts of man that says this is the case.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 



Would you be able to convince Buddha of the realist viewpoint? Of course not. Does that make him egoistic? Of course not! He knows what he knows, independent of any sort of outside biased 'belief'. Now, that does not mean I am less susceptible to the ego than anyone else. It does, however, mean I am more conscious of it.


I'm not talking to Buddha. I'm talking to you. Shut up about Buddha, I'm not interested in hearing about him because he's not here to defend the misuse of his philosophies.

Anything else posted regarding Buddha and I will simply ignore it. Now I want you to defend your beliefs.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108
 



Yes, but the argument that one is not the body-mind, but is fundamental awareness, is based on self-evident understanding and recognition. The argument that rationalists use to say one is the body-mind is also not provable, but apparently is self-evident to them.


For the latter, it actually is quite provable. I mean look around. The evidence is overwhelming. For the former, there is nothing but the thoughts of man that says this is the case.


For the former, it actually is quite provable. I mean look around. The evidence is overwhelming. For the latter, there is nothing but the thoughts of man saying this is the case.

Human rationale will never be able to comprehend or explain existence, and any belief against that is absolutely ignorant.
edit on 22-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

I'm not talking to Buddha. I'm talking to you. Shut up about Buddha, I'm not interested in hearing about him because he's not here to defend the misuse of his philosophies.

Anything else posted regarding Buddha and I will simply ignore it. Now I want you to defend your beliefs.


I am not misusing his philosophy. I am, in fact, using it quote correctly.

And as for the second part, I refuse to defend my beliefs because I don't believe in them. They are truth for me.

I don't even know why I am still debating. I said I was done and yet here I am...
edit on 22-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
I don't even know why I am still debating. I said I was done and yet here I am...
LOL! I think this thread may have become another Tar Baby!
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
For the former, there is nothing but the thoughts of man that says this is the case.
True enough for the man who can only think about it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 




For the former, it actually is quite provable. I mean look around. The evidence is overwhelming. For the latter, there is nothing but the thoughts of man saying this is the case.


Sure. Let's hear it. But before you place the thoughts of a yogi in place of your own, I'd like to hear your arguments.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


^ that is my argument. You will get nothing further out of me.



new topics




 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join