People asking for a path

[Kyriakos]

I am not at all into presenting a path to anyone, cause not only do i view such a position as actively dangerous (for many reasons) but also since i do not think we are moving in the same labyrinth to begin with. But, as the new circle of seminars begun (not that well..) a couple of days ago, i noticed that some of the audience does ask for specific 'answers', ranging from questions of how real/unreal the world we sense is, to religious issues, to more convoluted spiritualism.

I detest all those manifestations of thinking, though, cause on my part i aim to present a scheme and overview (and comparison) of philosophical systems (platonic, pre-socratic, more recent), and not to argue for a path in life. To make it clearer: I am like someone analysing a story in literature, and not someone who will announce to the audience that the characters in the story are to be imitated, and that we also are in the same story..

'We all struggle for learning, but sometimes the one who tries the most is seen as if he tries against it'

as flying-scarab Samsa/Kafka would say...

*

Do you think that knowledge is common, and shared in a neutral and beneficial way, in matters more theoretical than theorem-based or sense-evident based info?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or you could just tell him "The bank is on the left, the bar on the right, and the church is in centre". You know? Just maybe?

 

[Borachio]

OK.

But what's the question? Are you asking us to give some answers to the question "Which path should I follow?"

 

[Kyriakos]

The question is if you think one can show a path in such theoretical issues

I am of the view that it is a mistake to have such a stance. But some do, and i dislike it (some person in the seminar had exactly that, and it alarmed me and -sadly - caused a bit of a disorientation as well on my part..).

 

[Gori the Grey]

You need to go all Socrates on these types, ask them question after question, and midwife them to their own truth.

 

[Borachio]

I see, I think.

So, do you, Mr Kos, just like to examine these philosophies as an outside observer? You don't think they've any relevance at all to how you actually see, or act in, the world?

 

[gay_Aleks]

You need to go all Socrates on these types, ask them question after question, and midwife them to their own truth.

After the 5th question, whoever is asking the question will realise they're asking a Philosophy major and will move on.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Gori: Yes, in part at least... But that is not my role either, cause i cannot do that and stand to gain something (and i don't want to antagonise either).

@Borachio: I have to say that i regard it as pretty dangerous to oneself to not observe thoughts as something (to a crucial, if not full, degree) inherently prone to be altered (in myriads of ways), and ultimately not leading to more than iterations and complications of labyrinths below them (in the non-conscious part of the thinker). So, yes, i do not think we actually get to know something which is not part of our own world of thought.
Furthermore i think that if a thinker gets to set things as known/stable/specific points in a path, this ultimately will lead to a path forming -as a result of his stance, not due to some proximity to a 'reality'- and paths of that type can lead to very dangerous developments cause one is chasing shadows while he regards the shadows as set objects in the distance..

In my view we have no actual knowledge without the epicenter of the sphere we move in always being our own lenses, and below those lenses are underground halls where one can only freefall for an eternity if he happens to (accidentally usually) open a gap large enough for his consciousness to collapse there.

 

[warpus]

The path depends on the desired destination, so before you can tell people how to walk, you first need them to tell you where they're trying to get to. That's usually the problem from my experience - people just want "happiness" or some other state of mind. That's not a goal. You need to figure out the goal before you start walking, and "happiness" just won't cut it. If you haven't yet figured out yet what makes you happy for instance, that's what you need to work on before aimlessly trying to wander to your destination.

 

[brennan]

'Knowledge' is the claim to have sufficient understanding of a certain aspect aspect of an objective reality that a statement can be ascribed a true/false value without fear of being in error.

In order to claim knowledge then we must have a justification for a claim and believe in an objective reality.

I find that the commonality of experience with all these other meat bags I find walking around enable me to strongly believe the second part to be true, we only then have to make an effort to get to the first.

 

[Kyriakos]

^But are we really walking in the same plane with all the other humans, or are we each walking in our own spectre of an external plane, where we only sense (in a number of ways) other humans, who are moving in their own spectre of the same plane?

Cause i think the latter is 'true', or at least 'truer', while the former is likely false.

I mean imagine two people walking in a corridor, one after the other left, and leaving from a chasm in the wall. Even without getting to the actual more purely mental point of view, their height, vision, weight, will if crucially differing, factor significantly in how they sense the exact same external environment. The environment itself seems equally evident/sensible to all humans, but isn't that due to being built by humans in ways echoing basic geometry devised by humans due to their own abilities?
Would we be equally likely to sense a cave mostly as the next person would? Some people fear caves, while others don't, but not many fear standard rectangular corridors.

 

[Gori the Grey]

@Gori: Yes, in part at least... But that is not my role either, cause i cannot do that and stand to gain something (and i don't want to antagonise either).

After the 5th question, whoever is asking the question will realise they're asking a Philosophy major and will move on.

As Tolni points out, it gets them to move on (so you do stand to gain), but without antagonizing them (as you wish).

 

[dusters]

want path? apply critical thinking and science. Maslow's pyramid is a good start.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The question is if you think one can show a path in such theoretical issues

I am of the view that it is a mistake to have such a stance. But some do, and i dislike it (some person in the seminar had exactly that, and it alarmed me and -sadly - caused a bit of a disorientation as well on my part..).

I think its quite possible however not necessary at all. What is perhaps really needed is to simply share your point and way of seeing things and let others decide if they can use it up for their own development. Honest exchange is almost always benefical.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The path depends on the desired destination, so before you can tell people how to walk, you first need them to tell you where they're trying to get to. That's usually the problem from my experience - people just want "happiness" or some other state of mind. That's not a goal. You need to figure out the goal before you start walking, and "happiness" just won't cut it. If you haven't yet figured out yet what makes you happy for instance, that's what you need to work on before aimlessly trying to wander to your destination.

This is a good point. What do you want? is what determines what path you need to take.

But how "happiness" isnt a goal? I think its an excellent one. When happiness is my goal then I am saying that I need to improve my life without restricting the path to that by some outward circumstances and I am an openminded person. If I say I want to be this or achieve that becouse secretely I think it will give me happines I am already narrowing my possibilities...

 

[gay_Aleks]

want path? apply critical thinking and science. Maslow's pyramid is a good start.

Pyramids are a poor shape for making paths. I'd say that rectangles would be better.

 

[Borachio]

Pyramids are excellent for making paths. They give you a sense of direction without any fiddly signposts needed (which tend to fall down or get overgrown anyway).

Signage is embedded in pyramids.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Depends. What if you make a pyramidal mosaic? Then, wouldn't the pyramids point at each other, thus confusing the driver even further?

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. OK. You've got me there. I was mostly thinking of one giant pyramid pointing the way.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think there is actual knowledge, unless that knowledge is in a field already very particular and following from set axioms, themselves tied to 'evident' views (axiomata in fact etymologically means 'something which can aspire--axionein-- to stand on its own').

So a math theorem is a knowledge, but this followed from being in a human devised axiomatic-following system (math). Thales' theorem will always be true as long as we can define a perfect circle and properties of triangles.

On the other hand: do we actually know anything in practical (or more external oriented) matters? Surely each time i walk out of this building i am of the view that i won't be shot down by some sniper, but i do not actually know that i won't. In another variation: if i pick up a stone and then let it slide off the edge of my hand i do expect it to fall to the ground, but again i do not actually 'know' it will; i just expect it to, due to gravity being sensed/observed by myself all my life. But unlike in the math theorem, there is still a hypothetical possibility for a crucial variable to change, and thus there is no actual knowledge.