Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

I'm not sure what you mean, Exhumed-chan

Perhaps the red book may prove an adversary for you, but then again, not all things are completely psychological or logical in itself. We already know you dominate in this realm.

 

[Ren]

The acceptance of a new belief is necessarily influenced by the totality of all previous beliefs relevant to your specific context in some kind of heuristic matrix

That's an important point. W.V.O. Quine refers to the 'web of belief' to emphasise the holistic nature of belief formation. And I think that's very true.

We never encounter a new proposition in a vacuum. The decision whether to take up a belief is enmeshed in a vast network of already held beliefs, some of which are not very open to scrutiny (the more so if they are unconscious).

It might even be argued that our place our birth, the culture in which we were raised, the institutional framework etc., determine to a large extent the substance of our web of beliefs. If so, we are not really free to 'pick and choose' what to believe. The contrast between the U.S. and most EU countries in people's stances towards weapon possession is telling, for example.

 

[Ren]

not all things are completely psychological or logical in itself. We already know you dominate in this realm.

I agree, of course. (That not all things are logical, not that I dominate in any realm lol.)

Note, however, that it is possible to discuss a non-logical topic logically, in the same way that it's possible to discuss it illogically. I do think that when it comes to communicative interaction, certain rules of rationality (call them 'logical' or otherwise) ought to be respected. That doesn't mean that logic alone can supply a satisfactory answer to the problem. It rarely ever does, but it's usually a good starting point.

 

[o2b]

Hey Ren,

Wow, this got long.

(By the way, I saw a couple of your youtubes and you are too young to have the knowledge you do!)

I think that if you want your argument to have more force with your audience, you need to clarify what you mean a little bit

I have a ~30 hour audio series and what the blood is, is about half way into it. Yeah, things are incomplete. There is so much that has been left unsaid, actually.

I am trying to stay clear of too much Scripture, but just a couple. The context of this passage is, among other things, an event referred to as Jacob's time of trouble which is when he saw God's face. In other words, as a type (read; he did not really have the experience, but is a metaphor for it), this is the experience of complete subjection to holiness. It is described as travail as of a woman in birth pangs.

Jeremiah 31:22
22 How long will you gad about,
O you backsliding daughter?
For the Lord has created a new thing in the earth—
A woman shall encompass a man.”

This has to mean something. I suggest woman represents feeling and man, reason. The new thing is that the feeling realm will be far more dominant.

Your premise: we don't yet perceive in the realm of feeling. How is that the case? Perception of emotional states is one of the most basic forms of self-knowledge.

Do we perceive others emotional states in the sense that a person in a certain emotional state communicates to another that emotional state and the other feels it exactly as the person who is communicating it? Or perhaps do you perceive the fact that a person is in a certain emotional state? And if you to some degree feel the same feeling, how so? Is the person's feeling somehow flowing into your being? Or does one have strong powers of empathy, is aware of the feeling one is having, and from within himself he conjures up the same feeling (read: source being himself)?

I don't think we perceive another's feelings at all actually. I think we interpret certain cues and deduce the fact that someone is feeling something. These two concepts are even mutually exclusive, it seems to me.

This is a huge difference, i think. To use color as a metaphor for feeling. Let's say a person is feeling the color blue. And another is a strong empath. Is that person's blue actually entering into your perception and you are seeing his blue with that person as the source of the blue you are seeing? Or, as an empath, might the person be aware he is feeling blue and, knowing blue to some extent, summons the blue from within?

I wrote this in the blog:
Elijah has come and his coming is explained shortly. The faithful are now prepared to perceive in the realm of feeling and so they are subject to the experience of intense exposure to divine grace. So, they are now experiencing travail as of a woman in birth pangs. Let’s have a look at a single birth pang (chastening experience).

A discrete level of holiness is placed before the man’s perception. In proportion to that, he sees his immorality like he has never seen it before. He is stopped dead in his tracks. Now he is feeling intense loads of painful feelings like shame. Without the aid of his Savior, he is sure to pull a Judas. Light’s out and no one’s home.

But something strange is occurring. Imagine a pipe connected to the heart of Jesus and this man’s heart. Consider what the beast said to his beauty:

Vincent: Catherine I feel the things you're feeling when you do.

Catherine: How do you mean?

Vincent: Just know that it's true. And that your pain is my pain. Sometimes almost as if we're one.

As the man experiences his own shame, he fully perceives Christ experiencing that exact same level of shame. It’s coming from Him. It is speaking to the man. The man can touch it.

He is crucified with Christ!

Even with this kinship, it is not enough. He cannot summon the resources to escape the jaws of destruction. But wait! Other feelings are flowing from Christ to him. While this man is in too much pain to summon hope, he is literally perceiving Christ’s feelings of hope. Christ is even feeling confidence. The power latent in beholding Christ enables the man to think, Wow, I might be able to get out of this!

More and more the man sees Christ’s precise feelings related to His victory over the man’s burden. And more and more, the man is experiencing victory.

He is risen with Christ!

Along with these feelings, the man also perceives Christ’s love for him. His compassion, His pity, whatever is the perfect feeling-antidote for that man in his specific challenge is what Christ is giving him.

Now the man can give birth. By being crucified with Christ and by rising with Him, the man is made holy.

I am unable to summon the above experience. I don't perceive another in the realm of feeling in this way.

Your conclusion: Elijah must come first. The problem is that you are assuming the truth of your conclusion in advance. I understand this is a form of special pleading, but it isn't a philosophical argument

Actually, the fact that Elijah comes first is mentioned repeatedly in the Bible. (Of course, I appreciate that this fact and what I or anyone suggests Elijah is are two entirely different things.)

It's also not clear to me that moral clarity would result from e.g. perfect perception of feeling (assuming the coming of Elijah). Isn't morality the domain of reason rather than feeling?

In terms of moral clarity, I will use instead, character transformation. I think the revelation of holiness is involved, but I believe the process is so painful that we need Christ's aide in the realm of feeling and it is akin to a detox agent.

Morality in terms of what it is, is in the domain of reason. Morality in terms of expression includes the feeling realm.

I wrote this:
Components of Love

Love has two components, what it is and its expression. The latter component, expression, has three components, thinking, feeling, and doing.
· What Is Love?
· How Is Love Expressed?
o Feelings.
o Thoughts.
o External acts.

Here is a biblical example:

John 11:32-36
32 Then, when Mary came where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell down at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”
33 Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. 34 And He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.”
34 Jesus wept.
35 Then the Jews said, “See how He loved Him!”

Given the prerequisite of reason well understanding what love is, I actually think the most powerful force in the universe is its expression in the feeling realm.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Yes. Proceed. I don’t disagree on logic, some things don’t always require proof.
I see that going against any cognitive dissonance is painful in itself because it’s a confrontation of your subconscious beliefs, but it can take a toll upon what we see as character. Hmm. I’m simply spectating and mediating the situation as necessary.
I think it’s painful to have our irrationality confronted, but not everyone is lucky to be given this. No? Yet even the most irrational of understanding can be given guidance.
I see that energy must be transferred. If there is no self or no society, does this not mean that the mind and body must have a boundary? How do you think this expresses society and our need for individuality? How is traumatic subconscious events better dealt with?

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Perhaps intention is different from identity. I do believe in comfort as well as correction. Hmm…
Thoughts @o2b ?

 

[o2b]

Perhaps intention is different from identity. I do believe in comfort as well as correction. Hmm…
Thoughts @o2b ?

Hey @ExhumedMorrison!

I kinda don't understand the context of your post. I am unsure of what you are asking.

But intention different from identity. Hmmmm. My first reflex was to ponder if they are one and the same. Well, actually, my best guess is that a specific intention at a precise point in time is an expression of identity.

Yeah, my best stab is that intention is a manifestation of identity.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

But intention different from identity. Hmmmm. My first reflex was to ponder if they are one and the same. Well, actually, my best guess is that a specific intention at a precise point in time is an expression of identity.

Love you big bro.

 

[o2b]

Love you big bro.

Wow, big bro!

Love you too!

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

I agree, of course. (That not all things are logical, not that I dominate in any realm lol.)

Note, however, that it is possible to discuss a non-logical topic logically, in the same way that it's possible to discuss it illogically. I do think that when it comes to communicative interaction, certain rules of rationality (call them 'logical' or otherwise) ought to be respected. That doesn't mean that logic alone can supply a satisfactory answer to the problem. It rarely ever does, but it's usually a good starting point.

I just saw this. I agree to an extent as well, which is why it’s such an interesting topic.
I’m not too sure on your hypothesis about Socrates or any other philosopher/psychologist/“social movement” advocate, on that matter. I’m not one to judge in higher or lower regard of anyone.
I’d say we all have an ailment and a responsibility and it’s okay to have problems with understanding the difference here and there and far more popular than a lot of people care to believe, but those are my own beliefs and have been subject to change at times due to my environment as well as a decision. I try not to stay there though it can be hard to get out of if we have it backwards.
I don’t particularly believe in individual and society and getting stuck there from triggers or retraumatizing is the worst place to be. But it’s amazing to have people around you that care to pull you out when those times happen.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Hmm it got awfully quiet. Any thoughts subconscious & collective consciousness?

anima and animus?

I felt it was covered but I want to be sure the conversation isn’t dominated by us.

 

[Ren]

Hmm it got awfully quiet. Any thoughts subconscious & collective consciousness?

anima and animus?

I felt it was covered but I want to be sure the conversation isn’t dominated by us.

Don't stress about it getting quiet. Philosophically minded people like to take their time

First I'd like to understand what you mean by intention and identity. Of course they are not the same. Are you interested in the relation between the two?

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

First I'd like to understand what you mean by intention and identity.

Oh, I thought we all covered that. You’ll have to expand.
What was the question you had?
We discussed that it was one and the other. That it was both no singular identity and the latter of identity and choice. I’m pretty sure much of it has nothing to do with what I thought but @o2b
If you had thoughts or questions I don’t mind answering.

 

[Ren]

Oh, I thought we all covered that. You’ll have to expand.
What was the question you had?
We discussed that it was one and the other. That it was both no singular identity and the latter of identity and choice. I’m pretty sure much of it has nothing to do with what I thought but @o2b
If you had thoughts or questions I don’t mind answering.

Identity is a fascinating and enormously complex topic.

The first thing to do is to clarify what we mean by the word. Do we meant identity as such (which could apply to humans, animals, rocks, etc.) or identity as a result of self-reflection, i.e. sense of identity?

A blade of grass has identity: it is that of being that unique blade of grass. But of course it doesn't have a sense of identity, because sense of identity presupposes self-consciousness. I'll leave sense of identity aside for now.

It think it's plausible that intentions express identity in a certain way, from a certain perspective. Let's take an example. The identity of a human person is different from the identity of a bear. One way in which we can tell them apart is through the kinds of intentions that human persons, on the one hand, and bears, on the other, manifest. A human person can intend to write a letter. This type of intention is inaccessible to the bear. It is arguably unique to humans. On the other hand, a bear can intend to fell a tree in one blow to catch a prey. This type of intention is inaccessible to the human person.

Note, however, that the second intention (felling a tree in one blow to catch a prey) might not be unique to bears. If so, we might then say that that intention underdetermines bear identity. It is not contrary to it, but it does not sufficiently determine it in contrast to other identities. The same holds when a human person intends to drink water. However, note that if the intention is to drink a glass of water, then the intention properly determines human identity.

My tentative conclusion, then, is that some, not all, intentions are expressions of identity, on an exclusive definition of identity.

Thoughts?

 

[Ren]

Like I said, identity is an extremely complex and debated philosophical field and as a result, there are still many paradoxes associated with it. Here's one of them: does an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object?

Let's imagine you have a wooden boat. We'll call it Boat A. Over time the wooden parts begin to rot, so you have to replace them progressively, one by one, over a period of many years. After 3 years, your boat has had all of its parts replaced.

Meanwhile, the discarded planks of wood have been stored into a warehouse. Decades later, technology is developed that allows you to cure the rotting wood, and a new boat is assembled from the (now cured) original parts.

The question is: which of the two boats is Boat A? Is it the boat whose parts have been progressively replaced over time, and in which there are none of the original parts left; or is it the boat that was assembled, years later, from the original pieces after their rotting was cured with the help of technology?

Obviously it cannot be the case that both boats are Boat A. They are clearly two different boats. So which one is Boat A?

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

There were quite a few things I wanted to say about what I was implying in my intention, but my mind was separating ethos, individuality, and spirituality. Thank you for sharing the encouraging clarification.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

The question is: which of the two boats is Boat A? Is it the boat whose parts have been progressively replaced over time, and in which there are none of the original parts left; or is it the boat that was assembled, years later, from the original pieces after their rotting was cured with the help of technology?

Obviously it cannot be the case that both boats are Boat A. They are clearly two different boats. So which one is Boat A?

Well. That described perfectly what I was thinking and I’m sure everyone would answer differently and my perspective isn’t everyone’s. Thanks for that.

 

[Ren]

Well. That described perfectly what I was thinking and I’m sure everyone would answer differently and my perspective isn’t everyone’s. Thanks for that.

So you have no opinion on the matter?

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

So you have no opinion on the matter?

I’m sure it depends on the situation. That’s what makes it intriguing. Like I said. Not everyone is as cerebral as you are. You should give yourself some credit for that. It was nice chatting with you about this. I feel I’ve learned something about almost everything including myself.

 

[o2b]

Hey Ren,

That boat example is interesting, but lacking for me in significance simply because boats lack sentience.

If boats did have sentience and if some core attribute of sentience remained with either of the two boats, I would answer that whichever boat retained that sentience is Boat A.

Of course, if the process caused neither boat to have any core attribute of sentience that Boat A used to have and yet each of the later two boats did have sentience, I don't know how I'd answer! Likely, I would say neither is Boat A and now we have Boats B and C.