The mind and reality

[Mount Brocken]

Sometimes you just have to ignore the trolls. Every forum is graced with them, and this one is no different. After a while you get to know who they are and you simply ignore them.

If you want serious discussion without the nonsensical one-liners, go to the Clean Debate Zone. They're not allowed to post their crap there and so they don't even go there. You'll find plenty of decent people here that are willing to discuss issues whether they agree with you or not without calling names and insulting. These trolls, not so much.

Thank you. I am new and was 'baptized' into the forum with this sort of nonsense.

 

[Mount Brocken]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.

I have just recently been acquainted with the works of Alan Watts and I must say I was really impressed. He gave a lecture on G. K. Chesterton and how the basis of reality is wonder and surprise, as rooted in Buddhist teachings, I thought there was a great deal of richness and depth to it.

 

[Unkotare]

Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.

You feel qualified to make such an assessment?

 

[Pennywise]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.

I have just recently been acquainted with the works of Alan Watts and I must say I was really impressed. He gave a lecture on G. K. Chesterton and how the basis of reality is wonder and surprise, as rooted in Buddhist teachings, I thought there was a great deal of richness and depth to it.

College radio used to run his recorded lectures back in the late 80's. If you search his name you can find downloads of them on the web. His books are remarkable. I believe he was truly enlightened.

 

[Unkotare]

Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.

The moron you found yourself engaged with never adds anything of worth to discussions here. The very idea that he would claim some expertise on philosophy is laughable considering he spends all his time here claiming to know more than everyone else. He will not even be able to decipher the irony of that.

And just look at all your wonderful contributions!

 

[Unkotare]

to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for. .

Then perhaps you should be more careful with categorical statements. And stop being so sensitive.

 

[Unkotare]

Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue. For I certainly don't know it all, not even close. It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him. If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.

You seem a little blocked up yourself, champ.

 

[Mertex]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.

I've often thought of that, but when I have voiced it to anyone (husband), I always get a look of We really can't be sure, can we? Sometimes they don't even understand what I'm trying to say....so I've not brought it up again. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of these weird possibilities!

 

[Unkotare]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

That is exactly what those terms are often used to discuss; what lies at the heart of the question Kant reconciled.

 

[Mertex]

Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue. For I certainly don't know it all, not even close. It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him. If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.

You seem a little blocked up yourself, champ.

Geez, I thought you were better than that. Why don't you try being civil instead of snarky.....being snarky doesn't make you look smart.

 

[percysunshine]

Wow! ... this is impressive for a first ever thread. Three pages of response.

Congratulations Brocken.

 

[Pennywise]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.

I've often thought of that, but when I have voiced it to anyone (husband), I always get a look of We really can't be sure, can we? Sometimes they don't even understand what I'm trying to say....so I've not brought it up again. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of these weird possibilities!

Yes, people give funny looks when you ask something that questions what is reality. When the question was pointed toward me, my immediate reaction was that it was nonsense, until I really started to think about it.

 

[Unkotare]

Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue. For I certainly don't know it all, not even close. It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him. If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.

You seem a little blocked up yourself, champ.

Geez, I thought you were better than that.

Geez, I thought you knew me better than that. This kind of thread always needs an ego-relief valve or it will explode from built-up pretense. But by all means do carry on. It's an important topic. A look into Constructivism may prove fruitful to the discussion.

 

[Mertex]

Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue. For I certainly don't know it all, not even close. It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him. If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.

You seem a little blocked up yourself, champ.

Geez, I thought you were better than that.

Geez, I thought you knew me better than that. This kind of thread always needs an ego-relief valve or it will explode from built-up pretense. But by all means do carry on. It's an important topic. A look into Constructivism may prove fruitful to the discussion.

Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky. Especially to new members. I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to. I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them. I know you are better than that....

 

[Mount Brocken]

Then perhaps you should be more careful with categorical statements. And stop being so sensitive.

You are nothing but an intellectual bully. It is a shame however you lack the former and possess the latter. I ask about the conditions of the mind, you make a blanket statement about Kant, WHICH IS NOT REGARDED AS AN ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF IDEALISM AT ALL, and then spout out some special knowledge of Kant that you know and I mustn't know since you assume I haven't read him, or have missed something in reading him. I think you should discuss this with Alvin Plantinga or Frank Jackson since we amateurs are not on your level. I have their email addresses and have corresponded with them before. You can have them if you wish.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky. Especially to new members. I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to. I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them. I know you are better than that....

Exactly. When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out. This does not help in any meaningful dialogue. And one has to think of the motivation behind it. Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else. I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion. If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have. Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.

 

[Pennywise]

Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky. Especially to new members. I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to. I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them. I know you are better than that....

Exactly. When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out. This does not help in any meaningful dialogue. And one has to think of the motivation behind it. Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else. I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion. If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have. Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.

The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky. Especially to new members. I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to. I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them. I know you are better than that....

Exactly. When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out. This does not help in any meaningful dialogue. And one has to think of the motivation behind it. Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else. I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion. If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have. Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.

The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.

I agree completely. It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit. The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar. It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.

 

[Pennywise]

Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky. Especially to new members. I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to. I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them. I know you are better than that....

Exactly. When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out. This does not help in any meaningful dialogue. And one has to think of the motivation behind it. Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else. I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion. If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have. Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.

The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.

I agree completely. It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit. The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar. It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.

And, if I may offer, the very nature of philosophy itself bespeaks that you or I have as much relevance to the discussion as any scholar ever had. Your thoughts are as worthy as those of Alan Watts or Plato.

I think @shart_attack might have something worth bringing to this discussion.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky. Especially to new members. I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to. I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them. I know you are better than that....

Exactly. When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out. This does not help in any meaningful dialogue. And one has to think of the motivation behind it. Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else. I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion. If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have. Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.

The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.

I agree completely. It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit. The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar. It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.

And, if I may offer, the very nature of philosophy itself bespeaks that you or I have as much relevance to the discussion as any scholar ever had. Your thoughts are as worthy as those of Alan Watts or Plato.

I think @shart_attack might have something worth bringing to this discussion.

Absolutely. Socrates was nothing more than a man that sought to dismantle the sophist's platform of truth to the highest bidder. And look at Diogenes of Sinope. He was a homeless clot that went around mocking society and smelling quite bad the whole time. The unprofessional philosopher is the basis of philosophical questions in the first place. They start on the street corners, the kitchen tables well before they make it to the university lecture halls and academic journals.