What kind of philosophy do you enjoy the most?

[Ren]

Hi!

I love epistemology. To me, it seems like the most fundamental branch in philosophy. Karl Popper wrote a lot on epistemology, and I happen to agree with him on most things!

Hi man! Nice to see you join the conversation. I like Karl Popper too, though you're probably a lot more knowledgeable about his thinking than I am. I have found myself to be very influenced by his theory of falsification. I suppose everyone is, really. I also read bits of his book on Parmenides back when I was engaging with the Presocratics.

Do you consider epistemology to be 'prior' to ontology because you're fundamentally a Cartesian?

 

[Wyote]

because you're fundamentally a Cartesian?

All roads lead back to dualism

 

[Ren]

All roads lead back to dualism

Derrida would not approve!

 

[Ginny]

@Milktoast Bandit doesn't believe in the questioner of questioners

We must rescue the Father from the depths

I like the way Derrida is thinking, though sometimes I do have problems getting him at once. I'd probably have a better time following his line of reasoning if I spoke French. I had to read and reread the article I shared five or six times before I actually really got it.

The guy from the second video does have some valid points, but the religious aspect of holding on to God is... it's not my thing.

 

[Wyote]

Derrida would not approve!

All roads lead to the reconciliation of dualism and path of transcendence or the immersion in chaos and path of chrysopoeia

Neither of which is fully possible as a human, but both are worth pursuing

 

[Wyote]

the religious aspect of holding on to God is... it's not my thing.

He doesn't speak about religion other than in an allegorical/mythos sense which is deeply embedded in human psychology.
I encourage you to read some more on the works of Carl Jung as he uses his work as a basis for a lot of what he says.
Jung, in turn, uses a lot of ancient historical information on culture as the basis of his claims.

 

[Ren]

All roads lead to the reconciliation of dualism and path of transcendence or the immersion in chaos and path of chrysopoeia

Neither of which is fully possible as a human, but both are worth pursuing

I'm really interested in what you are saying, but your cryptic delivery makes it uncertain for me whether I'll answer something pertinent or not ^^

On what basis do you commit to transcendence as more epistemically preferable to, say, pure immanence? The more I think about transcendence, the more I see the (possible) trap of the hidden worlds that Nietzsche abhorred to much. Is it not possible to view the entire resources of life as located within life itself? Don't you think the concept of a Cartesian ego is itself fraught with difficulties, what with intentionality and all that jazz?

 

[Ginny]

He doesn't speak about religion other than in an allegorical/mythos sense which is deeply embedded in human psychology.
I encourage you to read some more on the works of Carl Jung as he uses his work as a basis for a lot of what he says.
Jung, in turn, uses a lot of ancient historical information on culture as the basis of his claims.

I probably blocked it off when he mentioned God, tuned out. Yeah, I think I'll do that. But it has to wait until next week.

 

[wolly.green]

Do you consider epistemology to be 'prior' to ontology because you're fundamentally a Cartesian?

Yes I do, though not because I'm a Cartesian. I think we are using the word 'fundamental' to mean something very different. If I understood your question correctly, by 'fundamental' you mean something like: 'that which lies at the foundations of reality'. But this is not quite what I mean. In fact, I'm not even sure what it means to have 'foudations of reality'. What I mean is that knowledge is our window into reality. If something features in our best explanations, then we must treat that thing as actually existing. For example, 'space-time' features in the theory of relativity. Since this is our very best explanation of the laws of physics, it follows that we must treat 'space-time' as actually existing. No matter what our ontology is. To say 'space-time' does not exist amounts to saying that the theory of relativity is not a true explanation of reality.

Although it is true that what we know has no affect whatsoever on what actually exists, why should this matter? Knowledge is our window into what actually exists. It tells us what is really there, in reality. What's more, EVERY ontology -- no matter how seemingly infallible -- is subject to error and therefore refutation. The search for true knowledge is the best we can do. I would even go so far as to suggest that we have a moral imperative to discover truth. And since the discovery of new knowledge is constrained by epistemology, it seems to follow that epistemology is fundamental. This is what I mean. What are your thoughts?

 

[Ginny]

I probably blocked it off when he mentioned God, tuned out. Yeah, I think I'll do that. But it has to wait until next week.

Actually, I ought to have an advantage with Jung and Nietzsche, I can read it directly from the source, free of translation-bias. Only I hate that Germans use the complexity of our grammar against us.

 

[Ren]

Hi Ren,
Yes, indeed, I lean more toward the History of Philosophy. With the reasoning of where the forefathers' intent of their teachings fall in relation to Modern Philosophy after these teachings had been filtered through the minds of many. To decide for myself if the teachings evolved or have been polutted/perverted, (rhetoric ), from the original intent. I'll need to ponder a bit on your questions. For now, I'll give you pause for thought too on the tidbit of...

My personal belief is this is true...however, I also believe that this was removed from the abstract thought intended, and squeezed into the literal box of black and white thinking. For example, do we as "man" not create laws, rules and cultures as a way to maintain external orders within the physicsl realm of living out the human life? But, what of mans internal life? Does s/he not contemplate personal investment into how s/he not only tackles their own physical experience, but also guage the measure of what personal success, master of thought and emotion, etc. are and thusly hold personal choice in how to tackle their internal landscape of experiences? Which in this regard is altitude of knowledge. I believe this view of "Man is the measure of all things" is more toward what the originating statement and meaning was intended. Translated, We Humans are governance of our own Self while we navigate the governance of our state, we humans have CHOICE. How we 'measure' life is in the end up to the individuals choice

Hi again Sandie, sorry I took a while to get back to you, there was quite a bit to unpack!

I think I understand what you mean, in my own way I'm sure, and like your interpretation. It's almost as if Plato wanted to inject the notion of Truth into a saying which Protagoras meant rather as locating freedom of choice within the individual. I think you helped me get a better notion of why Nietzsche admired Protagoras so much, and hated (and simultaneously revered, as an enemy to be vanquished) Plato. It's as if this realm of ideal Platonic entities endowed with Truth, from the point of view of the concrete praxis of individual human life, amounted to nothing much except depriving us of the healthy conviction that we do own what we do. From this (and skipping a good few causal mechanisms) we would arrive at Nietzsche's concept of the priest, and the will to nothingness as the will 'not to live' in the name of a higher ideal which, in the end, only serves to justify sheepishness and complacency about not daring to live.

My interest in the Sophists has always been there, but it's now just quadrupled!

 

[Littlelissa]

My non academic interpretation was that the man commenting on Faucault was talking about a return to mythos / god as a way of reconciling all the philosophical post- modernist reductionist arguments that leave you with little / no / not enough meaning so speak....
As If to say what is there left when you have philosophised yourself and everything else out of existence by taking a logocentric line...(even though I don't get or know all the arguments he was referring to, - he didn't elaborate there).
I think he and Jung could have a point because there has to be something beyond mental conjecture and clever arguments. Jung, anthropology, sociology and history etc recognise that we make stories and meanings of things - and that is integral to us as humans, otherwise where is the map? Your left with this is not a table, you are not real, reality is not real - are you the experiencer or the experience? Lol - hum, great, but where does that leave us?

 

[Wyote]

On what basis do you commit to transcendence as more epistemically preferable to, say, pure immanence?

How can I know or commit to something I am unable to accurately conceptualize? What does transcendence "feel" like? What "answers" does pure immanence provide?
Impossible questions. Nevertheless, the pursuit of answers drives us all. Perhaps "transcendence" is the "moment" before pure immanence, as it implies motion. Perhaps pure immanence is the "moment" before full deconstruction, as it implies stillness. Or perhaps, transcendence is motion and immanence is stillness. Active and reactive, and all that jazz.

But I'm no philosopher, you know your stuff far better than I. I simply wonder.

Don't you think the concept of a Cartesian ego is itself fraught with difficulties

Life is difficulty

 

[Ren]

How can I know or commit to something I am unable to accurately conceptualize? What does transcendence "feel" like? What "answers" does pure immanence provide?
Impossible questions. Nevertheless, the pursuit of answers drives us all. Perhaps "transcendence" is the "moment" before pure immanence, as it implies motion. Perhaps pure immanence is the "moment" before full deconstruction, as it implies stillness. Or perhaps, transcendence is motion and immanence is stillness. Active and reactive, and all that jazz.

But I'm no philosopher, you know your stuff far better than I. I simply wonder.



Life is difficulty

Here's an example of what I think transcendence can feel like: me telling a friend a white lie, even the most insignificant white lie, because really it's just pragmatically easier for everyone involved; and yet that annoying spectre of Immanuel Kant popping up and frowning: "Your white lie, insignificant as it may have been, still violated the moral law! It ought to be your duty to tell the truth at all times!"

I'm joking, but in many ways I think the morality of my Christian upbringing has messed up with me, and made me feel shameful about many things that I really shouldn't have felt shameful about. That's another conversation, I'm sure. But it's an example of what I see as the "danger" of transcendence.

 

[Wyote]

But that's an example of what I see as the danger of transcendence.

And what of the dangers of pure immanence?

 

[Ren]

And what of the dangers of pure immanence?

Good question. Maybe the anxiety of having to make your own choices without a God or a law to decide for you?

 

[Wyote]

Good question. Maybe the anxiety of having to make your own choices without a God or a law to decide for you?

anxiety, haphazardness, porosity etc.

 

[Ren]

I believe that and it is part of my Buddhist 'Humanist' Philosophy,
The Chinese character for crisis is the same for opportunity,- turning a crisis into an opportunity. Or as is referred to in the Lotus Sutra, 'turning poison into medicine', a principle which I have tried to use in my life and turn something negative into something positive. I think this seems similar to the principle you mention regarding 'radical freedom'.

This is really interesting, I had no idea something similar to the concept existed in Buddhist Philosophy.

Within that philosophy, is turning a crisis into an opportunity something which the human agent has the free power to decide to do? For some reason, I thought that Buddhism conflicted with free will. But it's one of my blind spots, so I'm probably way off the mark.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Well I'm sorry I don't believe you!

I don't believe in science...

Science doesn't believe in you

Dammit!!!

You, Milktoast, are a remarkable philosopher

How dare you spoil all that I am not with your cheap labels!!!

I believe our friend Michel Foucault

I don't believe in Michel Foucault

I don't know if you realise it but we are currently engaged in employing the Cartesian method of hyperbolic doubt to determine and trim down what can be established to exist with certainty

Thanks for teaching me something. Now, I believe I need to forget what I learned!

How do you get out of bed every day if you don't believe in anything? Or do you spend your days in bed w**king off, waiting for the apocalypse?

I dress up like a blanket so I'm always in bed. That way I can wander around with the masses while I w**k off...

 

[Sandie33]

Hi again Sandie, sorry I took a while to get back to you, there was quite a bit to unpack!

I think I understand what you mean, in my own way I'm sure, and like your interpretation. It's almost as if Plato wanted to inject the notion of Truth into a saying which Protagoras meant rather as locating freedom of choice within the individual. I think you helped me get a better notion of why Nietzsche admired Protagoras so much, and hated (and simultaneously revered, as an enemy to be vanquished) Plato. It's as if this realm of ideal Platonic entities endowed with Truth, from the point of view of the concrete praxis of individual human life, amounted to nothing much except depriving us of the healthy conviction that we do own what we do. From this (and skipping a good few causal mechanisms) we would arrive at Nietzsche's concept of the priest, and the will to nothingness as the will 'not to live' in the name of a higher ideal which, in the end, only serves to justify sheepishness and complacency about not daring to live.

My interest in the Sophists has always been there, but it's now just quadrupled!

Thank you Ren for your reply; I'm still contemplating your earlier questions. Often I find I need to sleep on a thing before responding.

You make a strong set of points in your interpretation of my point. IMHO, Truth is in the end the final goal in any analysis. Now, Truth is subjective really, because each indivdual brings the facts to the final decision of what The Truth is. Which brings in the question, is one man's lie inevitably another man's truth? This I believe is why most legal systems are trying cases based on facts and not on truths; yet, many lawyers lead questioning with, for example, "Isn't it true Mr. Smith that on the night in question you were at 32 Main Street between the hours of 1 and 3 pm?" This gives Mr. Smith a choice. Does he reply, yes, that he was indeed there, and show others that he may have committed the crime in question, or, does he choose to chance that there was no witness to his presence at that place and time, and lie by saying no, that he was not there. You see in this way, the burden of proof still falls to the accuser.

In Anceient Greece, one of the primary purposes (jobs) of the Sophist was to teach Oratorical skills to students for a fee, (students mostly of wealth and status), as the majority of disputes and crimes were tried in the Arena and the better one could plead their case, the better chance they had to win.

When Sophists started training lower class students, again who could pay, the same Oratorical skills Plato was brought to fits. The main reason being it leveled the field between the upper class and lower class, and the lower class began to talk their way out of their troubles Protogoras was a huge advocate of equality in Learning.

Gorgias was another first generation Sophist but from Sicily. He was sent on purpose to Greece, and he lived there until he was 100 years old, about 40 years of influencing Greek Philosophy. He introduced paradoxes and paradoxical expression, for which he has been labelled the "father of sophistry". He also contributed to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the language of literary prose...thereby ushering in the mainstream usage of rhetoric.