Random Philosophical Thoughts

[Narz]

I have checked the first 3-4 books in your sig and I think I like them. Judging by these I would assume you are what I would call a seeker. I am myself interested in spirituality and therefore many of the books I read are written by spiritual masters or advanced seekers.

Any in particular that you found useful?

You pick a rather unfortunate example; it does not make your case well.

If free will does not exist or is limited in some way than that affects our everyday moral judgments dramatically. To wit, most people believe that to be held responsible for an action one must have performed it freely. Moral responsibility is the basis of much punishment. If no one does any action freely (free will does not exist), no one is morally responsible for an action and thus no one is to be held responsible for any action. Thisbasis of punishment dissolves.

And don't say 'we could not do anything about it anyway, if we weren't free'. We couldn't freely choose to do anything about it, but certainly it would affect our day to day lives. It would change our behavior, albeit deterministically.

Like fish said, if we don't have free will we can't use willpower to learn that we don't & what changes we might make as a result of that knowledge (which will either come to us or not as we have no control) isn't really a decision.

The idea that we'll "discover" one or or another (and forgive all criminals if we find out they don't have a choice) is ridiculous. Even if it could be "proven" one way or another (which of course it can't) laypeople would not change. "Oh, that rapist had no choice nor did the saint, lets treat them both equally", get real!

Choice is an interesting phenomenon like I mentioned earlier. People are both responsible for themselves & affected by the system(s) around them.

The whole does (absolute) free will exist or do we have none at all seems like an archaic & ridiculous questions that belongs in the era when people believed in the four humors & whatnot.

Reading about studies of the brain is much more interesting. Turns out researchers can know whether you'll pick one choice or another (out of two simplistic choices) six seconds before you "know" what choice you're making. Not sure what the exact implications are but it doesn't really speak to the free will question, just shows that choice & the brain are more complicated than people may imagine.

In general, abstract philosophical issues shed dramatic light on ethics and aesthetics. And these are the things great (perhaps, the greatest) importance in our day to day lives. Want to know if moral judgments are all relative, or mistaken?

The answer is neither. There is some room for relativity in morality but some things should always be condemned (like sadism). I find these either/or dillemas & hypotheticals unsophisticated & lacking any relavance. Perhaps you can give me some better examples & how they have affected law or psychology for instance.

Better venture in to the metaphysical character of moral facts (if they have one)

Moral "facts" sounds silly.

and the epistemology by which we could come to those facts. Want to know whether a virtuous life is the best life? Better analyse virtue and best, with the same tools of metaphysics and epistemology. Want to know if God exists? Humanities place in the universe? Whether life has meaning? If so, the frameworks developed in the abstract areas of philosophy (perhaps the most abstract of which is logic) will be of vital importance.
I certainly think these issues have an effect on our lives. I am surprised you do not.

So what have philosophers come up with as to the definition of virtue, the existence & location of God & the meaning of life? Any breaking news?

And of course, even if they didn't it seems bizarre to ignore them, with the wave of a hand. Knowing the fundamental structure of the universe, in physical terms, might have no effect on my life. I would probably never employ knowledge of Quantum Mechanics or String Theory. It is fascinating, nonetheless. Knowledge like this is one of the things which make life valuable.

I haven't read any books on Sting Theory. There is only so much one can absorb in this lifetime. Pondering free will or the sound of one hand clapping definitely isn't tops on my bucket list.

But of course, what makes a life valuable might be another philosophical problem for which you have no time.

A bitter philosopher you are. "If they disagree with you, troll them!". I don't recall any of the classic philosophers recommending that course.

 

[Angst]

To everyone: Would it be fine for me, from some thinker's viewpoint, to violently throw epistemology & metaphysics out the window, assume I can know no certain truths, and then embrace things that are uncertain and chaotic, like emotion, pleasantry, art and love? What philosopher should I cite if wanted to embrace my primal simple human lowly being? I want to savour my senses and my own human subject rather than talk of black holes and stars.

And, well, most importantly, I want to embrace arguing from the viewpoint of this nonsense. Would it be possible to screw logic when talking about things?

EDIT: I know that Kierkegaard argues that faith is enough of a reason to believe or something. Faith, to me, is purely emotional, and can therefore easily be embraced without the need of reason. But I haven't read the text where Kierkegaard states that.

 

[Narz]

To everyone: Would it be fine for me, from some thinker's viewpoint, to violently throw epistemology & metaphysics out the window, assume I can know no certain truths, and then embrace things that are uncertain and chaotic, like emotion, pleasantry, art and love? What philosopher should I cite if wanted to embrace my primal simple human lowly being? I want to savour my senses and my own human subject rather than talk of black holes and stars.

You don't need permission.

It sounds kind of like hedonism, though I don't know a whole lot about it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@lord_joakim Now that is my (surely imperfect) take at it...

There are three claims I find in your post (or questions, whatever).

The first one: Can I throw traditional/established views and talking points and their advocates out of the window? I say: yes! As long as you are willing to confront others who will evoke those and their arguments. Otherwise, you are just playing "Nanana I can't hear you", which is the trait of ignorance. On the other hand, to not be willing to think outside of established patterns of thoughts is to intellectually cripple yourself. So its own kind of ignorance if you ask me.

The second one: Can I use emotional reactions as valid justifications? Again: Yes! And make that an reinforced one. Emotions are the only ultimate source of purpose, joy and meaning. They are in the end everything that matters. Beyond emotions, everything is ultimately irrelevant. This is a fact of the nature of the world, or rather, of how we humans perceptive the world and no rationalizing will make it not so. In fact, logic can get in the way of finding emotional fulfillment, for emotional fulfillment will always be a certain kind of illusion and logic embodying rationality doesn't go well with that.

The third one: Can I piss on logic in doing so? Partially yes ("yes" besides what I already wrote, so keep that in mind, too) - and partially a resounding no. Yes, because logic as a tool can easily mislead for it at times complicates otherwise simple or maybe not simple but at least intuitionally graspable matters. Which can result in a net burden on the individual and its quest for emotional fulfillment. Meaning: logic is only a tool, not an end. So, if it is about your individual well-being - please, get rid of logic if turns out to only be a burden (but ideally, you at times do and at times don't). However, logic is necessary to not let ourselves be swayed by superstition, and there is no replacement for it. Only the power of logic can effectively battle said superstition. So when your quest is truth, logic is indispensable. And when the superstitions of various individuals clash with each other, logic can be the only means left to find your way through of such a superstitious conglomerate.
But as said: When you quest is individual well-being - take logic for what it is: a tool which can but for god sake does not have to be useful.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Any in particular that you found useful?

Plenty. For instance atm I am reading Sri Aurobindos Triple transformation(part of letters on yoga, part III.). He is unique combination of schollar(studied at Cambrige) and yogi. He both posseses the wisdom of ancient seers and acknowledges science achievements and give space to intelectual/mental development. Finaly his yoga goes one step further than the traditional yogic paths and envisions new creation on earth and development of humanity. But it can be pretty heavy stuff yet quite simple at the same time.

http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/writings.php

 

[Integral]

To everyone: Would it be fine for me, from some thinker's viewpoint, to violently throw epistemology & metaphysics out the window, assume I can know no certain truths, and then embrace things that are uncertain and chaotic, like emotion, pleasantry, art and love? What philosopher should I cite if wanted to embrace my primal simple human lowly being? I want to savour my senses and my own human subject rather than talk of black holes and stars.

And, well, most importantly, I want to embrace arguing from the viewpoint of this nonsense. Would it be possible to screw logic when talking about things?

EDIT: I know that Kierkegaard argues that faith is enough of a reason to believe or something. Faith, to me, is purely emotional, and can therefore easily be embraced without the need of reason. But I haven't read the text where Kierkegaard states that.

You're probably looking for an existentialist or two. Truth is subjectivity and all. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are the go-to guys depending on your religious flavor.

Early Kierkegaard has a book on just "following an esthetic life": Part I of Either/Or. In particular I draw your attention to the little essay therein called "Crop Rotation" (which of course has nothing to do with crops).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To everyone: Would it be fine for me, from some thinker's viewpoint, to violently throw epistemology & metaphysics out the window, assume I can know no certain truths, and then embrace things that are uncertain and chaotic, like emotion, pleasantry, art and love? What philosopher should I cite if wanted to embrace my primal simple human lowly being? I want to savour my senses and my own human subject rather than talk of black holes and stars.

And, well, most importantly, I want to embrace arguing from the viewpoint of this nonsense. Would it be possible to screw logic when talking about things?

EDIT: I know that Kierkegaard argues that faith is enough of a reason to believe or something. Faith, to me, is purely emotional, and can therefore easily be embraced without the need of reason. But I haven't read the text where Kierkegaard states that.

1.You may not be able to know truth as certainty but that doesnt mean that it would be better embrace chaos. Just like becouse humans often act/think disharmoniously that doesnt mean they would be better off living like animals.
This however is also thing of personal inclination and need and temporarily it can serve as good experience.
If one doesnt have much inclination to philosophy or mental development thats O.K. becouse love of art, music, literature or emotional development can be quite enough, I think, to bring satisfaction into ones life...
2.I dont know any philosopher who would focus his attention on lower parts of human nature even though everyone has to touch the subject in one way or the other as it constitues important element in human life- one cant understand/experience the subtle realities/truths of life if ones vision is clouded by the grosser stuff.
3.Logic is not the only way of thinking and probably not even the most important one...
4.Faith is best effective when it is integral - when it is psychic and supported by the mental-emotional element.

 

[Dachs]

In particular I draw your attention to the little essay therein called "Crop Rotation" (which of course has nothing to do with crops).

preorder cancelled

 

[Angst]

You don't need permission.

It sounds kind of like hedonism, though I don't know a whole lot about it.

Reminds me I should get a book on hedonism.

@lord_joakim Now that is my (surely imperfect) take at it...

There are three claims I find in your post (or questions, whatever).

The first one: Can I throw traditional/established views and talking points and their advocates out of the window? I say: yes! As long as you are willing to confront others who will evoke those and their arguments. Otherwise, you are just playing "Nanana I can't hear you", which is the trait of ignorance. On the other hand, to not be willing to think outside of established patterns of thoughts is to intellectually cripple yourself. So its own kind of ignorance if you ask me.

I've jumped back and forth between the two and is constantly trying to restrict myself to a middle ground where I'm a pleasant person to discuss with. I've endured much embarassment in here, for example, simply because I didn't know my place as an intellectual - I'm really not one such, yet.

The second one: Can I use emotional reactions as valid justifications? Again: Yes! And make that an reinforced one. Emotions are the only ultimate source of purpose, joy and meaning. They are in the end everything that matters. Beyond emotions, everything is ultimately irrelevant. This is a fact of the nature of the world, or rather, of how we humans perceptive the world and no rationalizing will make it not so. In fact, logic can get in the way of finding emotional fulfillment, for emotional fulfillment will always be a certain kind of illusion and logic embodying rationality doesn't go well with that.

This! This, exactly! This is what I want some literature on to support my current pondering.

The third one: Can I piss on logic in doing so? Partially yes ("yes" besides what I already wrote, so keep that in mind, too) - and partially a resounding no. Yes, because logic as a tool can easily mislead for it at times complicates otherwise simple or maybe not simple but at least intuitionally graspable matters. Which can result in a net burden on the individual and its quest for emotional fulfillment. Meaning: logic is only a tool, not an end. So, if it is about your individual well-being - please, get rid of logic if turns out to only be a burden (but ideally, you at times do and at times don't). However, logic is necessary to not let ourselves be swayed by superstition, and there is no replacement for it. Only the power of logic can effectively battle said superstition. So when your quest is truth, logic is indispensable. And when the superstitions of various individuals clash with each other, logic can be the only means left to find your way through of such a superstitious conglomerate.
But as said: When you quest is individual well-being - take logic for what it is: a tool which can but for god sake does not have to be useful.

Well; it's not that I wish to actively neglect logic or deny using it overall per se; but at least, as a temporary experiment, I want to spend some time only taking emotions into consideration when discussing or thinking about things. When I'm done trying the emotional direction, I'll get back to making sense. I want to provoke myself by trying out extremes: And the warmth of sensation just speaks to me.

You're probably looking for an existentialist or two. Truth is subjectivity and all. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are the go-to guys depending on your religious flavor.

Early Kierkegaard has a book on just "following an esthetic life": Part I of Either/Or. In particular I draw your attention to the little essay therein called "Crop Rotation" (which of course has nothing to do with crops).

Which Nietzsche would you suggest? I'm currently enjoying Thus Spake Zarathustra. I like his powerful writing but don't follow his philosophy throughoutly, as it seems to have an intention of legitimizing aristocracy. I could be wrong, though.

I've read Either/Or's Diapsalmata and is enjoying the diary in the end. The thing is that Johannes really isn't a sympathetic character; all the characters in the diary are charicatures and I'm not sure Kierkegaard wishes me to follow the poetic example of Johannes; rather, it seems like a description of a state of mind, taking Kierkegaard's view of existential levels into consideration and all.

The book is quite enjoyable, but hard to parse. I read half of the meat in the middle when I was fifteen, and of course, I understood squat.

Also, Crop Rotation is hilarious. I'll look it up.

Gorakshanat, I have to leave for work, but will answer you when I get hold of time to do it.

 

[Leoreth]

If you want to go right to the beginnings, I suggest Epicurus. I've read Cicero's De finibus bonorum et malorum in school and found his presentation of Epicureanism very interesting.

 

[Traitorfish]

Epicurus is hardly the beginning. You'd need to pair him up with at least Plato and Aristotle, and, even then, modern philosophy doesn't make much sense without the 16th-18th century- Descartes, Hume, Kant, etc.- and even then you can't get a handle on a lot of contemporary philosophy without looking at Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger, etc. In all honestly, you're better reading an "introduction to Western philosophy" book of some sort than diving into any particular school or thinker, and try and make your way from there.

 

[Angst]

EDIT: I know a little about Western Philosophy from free time reading and my high school class. So I'll look into Epicurus.

1.You may not be able to know truth as certainty but that doesnt mean that it would be better embrace chaos. Just like becouse humans often act/think disharmoniously that doesnt mean they would be better off living like animals.

But chaos is fun. Why wouldn't it be good to feel good? The search for objective truth may inasmuch be a good thing, but isn't it the sign of some curious angst seeded in all humans? Why not spend it on things that means something to my subject? Also, why isn't it true what is true to me? Why should subjective arts value less in truthfulness than metaphysics? Because I feel that, f.x., the poems I write are simply truer, to me, than any law of thermodynamics. Even while it doesn't make any sense, I feel that way. Is that wrong to embrace and argue for?

I know it's a lot of questions, but it's because I have clarity issues, I think you can answer me anyways.

This however is also thing of personal inclination and need and temporarily it can serve as good experience.
If one doesnt have much inclination to philosophy or mental development thats O.K. becouse love of art, music, literature or emotional development can be quite enough, I think, to bring satisfaction into ones life...

Why do you distinguish mentality from emotion?

2.I dont know any philosopher who would focus his attention on lower parts of human nature even though everyone has to touch the subject in one way or the other as it constitues important element in human life- one cant understand/experience the subtle realities/truths of life if ones vision is clouded by the grosser stuff.

Why would love be lower than metaphysics? What matters more for me to experience? What is higher, to me?

3.Logic is not the only way of thinking and probably not even the most important one...

Which makes me think, you can argue by logics and subjective opinion, are there any argument schools beyond the logical?

4.Faith is best effective when it is integral - when it is psychic and supported by the mental-emotional element.

I don't think I understand this. When would faith be anything but integrated in your mentality? Do you mean it has to be internal? If so, you're stepping on some toes I don't think are very good to step on. Spiritual experiences, or spiritual things connected with a religion, are pretty awesome, and they're even better when bound in social ones. For example, singing folk songs about God around a campfire feels pretty awesome. Psalms can be epic. (Although they're too often too long.) Religion additionally integrates itself into culture inevitably and brews images beautiful beyond my subtle comprehension.

~

Also, random joke about objectivism:

All humans are objective, but some are more objective than others.

I don't even think I'm arguing against the ideology...

 

[warpus]

I've been too busy to keep up with the thread, but I saw people discussing free will.

I think some form of free will must exist. Otherwise why would we be discussing whether we have free will or not? Seems counterintuitive unless someone set up the Universe as a joke or there exists a multiverse and we happen to live in one of many.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Thanks, these are all interesting questions.

But chaos is fun. Why wouldn't it be good to feel good?

I do enjoy chaos myself and give it tiny place in my life too but only when I am confident I can replace it with order or harmony at my sweet will. Chaos is innertly the messenger of destruction. It stands in the way of your progress in any field.
Maybe you could specify once more what kind of chaos you are talking about.

The search for objective truth may inasmuch be a good thing, but isn't it the sign of some curious angst seeded in all humans?

Not all humans are searching. In fact most probably dont. But you could be right that there is some seed form of it present in most.

Why not spend it on things that means something to my subject?

I agree you must spend your potential on thing which matters to you. Only I would recomend to try to keep wider picture so that you dont waste energy in case you end up in blind alley.

Also, why isn't it true what is true to me? Why should subjective arts value less in truthfulness than metaphysics? Because I feel that, f.x., the poems I write are simply truer, to me, than any law of thermodynamics. Even while it doesn't make any sense, I feel that way. Is that wrong to embrace and argue for?

All right, so you are a poet. I am glad to hear that and I wish you strong inspiration.
Everything is true- your imagination or subjective feelings, the things you like or are afraid of- everything has some reality in it or portion of truth. It is what gives you satisfaction what decides how you aproache some reality and you can even judge by it (by sense of satisfaction)if something make sense or not.

Why do you distinguish mentality from emotion?

Mind is by nature dry. It is the vital/emotional part in us which offers the joy of creation and moves life in desired directions.

Why would love be lower than metaphysics? What matters more for me to experience? What is higher, to me?

I think it depends on the kind of love you are talking about. But I would say actualy that methaphysic is no match for love in its purest form (which is indeed very rare experience).

Which makes me think, you can argue by logics and subjective opinion, are there any argument schools beyond the logical?

I think, you can go "beyond the logical" when entering higher layers of mind (higher mind, intuitive mind, illumined mind, over mind, super mind) but when you will want to present your experiences outwardly it still will have to be subject to some kind of logic.

I don't think I understand this. When would faith be anything but integrated in your mentality?

What I meant was that one can be convinced of something mentaly(out of greed for instance) but your conscience(psychic element) may disaproves of it. Or you may have religious(psychic) experience but your mind mercilessly doubts it. Etc.
So I would see it ideal if the faith is dominatly psychic (as psychic is the highest part of man with biggest capacity) with support from mind and vital(emotional part of the being).

Spiritual experiences, or spiritual things connected with a religion, are pretty awesome, and they're even better when bound in social ones. For example, singing folk songs about God around a campfire feels pretty awesome. Psalms can be epic. (Although they're too often too long.) Religion additionally integrates itself into culture inevitably and brews images beautiful beyond my subtle comprehension.

Interesting. That statue is awesome.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I've been too busy to keep up with the thread, but I saw people discussing free will.

I think some form of free will must exist. Otherwise why would we be discussing whether we have free will or not? Seems counterintuitive unless someone set up the Universe as a joke or there exists a multiverse and we happen to live in one of many.

I think its a joke. But I have also heard about limited free will.

 

[warpus]

I think its a joke. But I have also heard about limited free will.

From what I've read we actually have very little free will.. Sort of.

Most of the "decisions" our brain makes are done in the subconscious, and most of that is based on instinct and experience.

Our conscious is then free to "overrule" decisions made in the subconscious, but apparently that doesn't happen very often.

That's why when you're.. say.. playing soccer, and "in the groove", decisions just seem to happen automatically. I was a keeper for a couple years and was always amazed how I was able to react with such speed and make saves, without really thinking about it. It really made me appreciate how much thinking my subconscious really does for me.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

From what I've read we actually have very little free will.. Sort of.

Most of the "decisions" our brain makes are done in the subconscious, and most of that is based on instinct and experience.

Our conscious is then free to "overrule" decisions made in the subconscious, but apparently that doesn't happen very often.

That's why when you're.. say.. playing soccer, and "in the groove", decisions just seem to happen automatically. I was a keeper for a couple years and was always amazed how I was able to react with such speed and make saves, without really thinking about it. It really made me appreciate how much thinking my subconscious really does for me.

Very interesting. Now I am going to become realy serious heretic by saying this but I have recently come across theory which says that thoughs are not actualy created in mind but they are sort of floating in the air and looking for particular mind to fit.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Now I am going to become realy serious heretic by saying this but I have recently come across theory which says that thoughs are not actualy created in mind but they are sort of floating in the air and looking for particular mind to fit.

Seeeeeeems legit.

 

[Traitorfish]

From what I've read we actually have very little free will.. Sort of.

Most of the "decisions" our brain makes are done in the subconscious, and most of that is based on instinct and experience.

Our conscious is then free to "overrule" decisions made in the subconscious, but apparently that doesn't happen very often.

That's why when you're.. say.. playing soccer, and "in the groove", decisions just seem to happen automatically. I was a keeper for a couple years and was always amazed how I was able to react with such speed and make saves, without really thinking about it. It really made me appreciate how much thinking my subconscious really does for me.

Doesn't this fold all decisions together, as if they're of equivalent significance? It seems to me that most of the key decisions, the ones that actually shape your life, are concious. Playing soccer isn't really the same thing as deciding where to live, if you see what I'm getting at.

 

[Mise]

"Man can do what he wills but he can't will what he wills".