The mind 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.

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.

Any time a talented comedian makes a social statement through comedy, they are philosophizing. Any time some blue collar schlub makes a comment that synopsizes a thought deeper than is readily observed at surface level, that is philosophy.

 

[shart_attack]

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.

Thanks, bro.

But I'm a bit late to this party.

Gotta go back and read the thread up to here so I'll have a clue what's up.

 

[shart_attack]

How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?

By being wrong.

Are wrong and incorrect the same thing to you?

One term implies and ethical or moral failing or tort, the other merely some mistaken reasoning, yes?

 

[percysunshine]

Anyone ever read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'?

.

 

[dilloduck]

hell ya---Phaedrus. Great book

 

[percysunshine]

.

So, should Truth be subservient to Good, or Good subservient to Truth?

In reality anyway.

.

 

[Pennywise]

.

So, should Truth be subservient to Good, or Good subservient to Truth?

In reality anyway.

.

You need to define good. It may a good thing to kill someone, depending on the circumstances. And who defines "truth"? Are facts and truth synonymous?

 

[dilloduck]

I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias. Men have even invented the methods that we use to so call "prove" things. Convenient huh ?

 

[Unkotare]

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

You are nothing but an intellectual bully. ..

If you're over the age of 12, you're too old to be crying "bully!" Come on now, we've talked about this...

 

[Unkotare]

I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias.

Every one of those senses can be very easily and very thoroughly deceived.

 

[dilloduck]

I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias.

Every one of those senses can be very easily and very thoroughly deceived.

Absolutely but a person would have no reference point without them. We're doomed to be deceived anyway.

 

[Unkotare]

I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a [sic] book reviewer for an academic journal...

Wow, you a book reviewer? Me impressed.

 

[Unkotare]

I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias.

Every one of those senses can be very easily and very thoroughly deceived.

Absolutely but a person would have no reference point without them.

Or perhaps our true reference point lies elsewhere.

 

[dilloduck]

perhaps---

 

[Mount Brocken]

How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?

By being wrong.

Are wrong and incorrect the same thing to you?

One term implies and ethical or moral failing or tort, the other merely some mistaken reasoning, yes?

Good point. That is one of the unfortunate features of languages. Words out of context. A word can be applied as a term. I wasn't appealing to terminology, just the word in the specific context.

 

[midcan5]

"The mind is the effect, not the cause." Daniel Dennett

Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?

First off the mind is the brain is the mind. Perceptions and reflections are the same thing. Content assumes storage. Empirical is about observation and experiment. Reality on the other hand is all over the place for unless something is concrete, people above mere survival create lots of reality until the day comes when something contradicts their assumed reality.

"Ideologies are stories we tell ourselves. That's okay, as long as we remember that they are are just stories - and not reflections of reality." Stewart Brand

I would suggest Daniel Dennett's books for the interested reader.

 

[Mount Brocken]

I disagree with Dennett's ontological perspective. He is a materialist.

 

[Vikrant]

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.

This basically brings us to harsh reality that we can never really communicate our thoughts to others regardless of our mastery on the language. This leads to another harsh realization that you could never learn from others. You are on your own serving a solitary confinement. During this confinement what we call life, we learn things and feel things. We do our best to convey to others what we learn and what feel. I think this is what we are doing here despite knowing the daunting nature of the task.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?

Misperceptions of misunderstood reality.

 

[Vikrant]

Mind is what makes things real. If you take mind out of the equation then nothing is real. You cannot access past. You cannot access future. We feel like present is accessible but how do you measure present when it does not stand still even for the smallest imaginable unit of time. So where is our existence? It is certainly not in the past, future or even in the present. Our existence simply lies in our mind. That is where we access past. That is where we experience present. This memory helps us deduce a predictable pattern we call future. People do not seem to realize this uniqueness that is associated with consciousness.