Ayjaydee
Active Member
Most philosophical arguements are based on feelings
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What would falsify your paradigm?
- Thread starter Galateasdream
- Start date
Galateasdream
Active Member
Not in my limited experience. But I'm not exactly a world expert.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
We are going into the weeds.
That is fun, but a tangent.
In short philosophy as back to the Greek dualism between rationalism and feelings, the idea you only need one and not other doesn't hold up.
How weird it might seem, you need both to do philosophy about reality or the human condition.
You can't do reality as a coherent whole without feelings or human existence and experience without feelings.
The moment you turn philosophy into a practice, the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration in the strong sense breaks down as a practice if you don't account for feelings and use them.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
They are in the western tradition. The joke is that most western philosophy operate under the hidden paradigm that rationality is good. But good is what???
Ayjaydee
Active Member
It seems to me feelings are always involved in any dualistic view of existence
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
If "God created everything" people indeed and logically believes in the same God - They just don´t know. And this also goes for the priests who forgot the mythical symbolism and logics in the cultural Stories of Creation.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Even single monism is usually argued for as being better as useful. That useful is a version of a feeling.
I.e. no matter how you arrive at what really matters, that it matters, is what???
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yes in the individual and social sense but "philosophy" goes far beyond this area, for instants as in "natural philosophy" where "natural logics" as a method plays a significant rule.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but there it is as I was taught it by a Buddhist. Reality itself is a cookie dough and we are all cookie dough cutters, yet with individual variations. The moment you stress "all" and reduce away "individual" you overlook something.
So let us do classic logic as non(A and non-A). The notation is sloppy, but that doesn't matter. What happens, is when you unpack the signs for how they in practice "map" the cookie dough and the cutters.
Something in time, space and a given property can't be something else for same time, space and a given property. But something else can be of a different time, space and property. So I can't be you and you can't be me with logic, because we are of different time, space and properties.
So over-reductive logic is to cut away time, space and all other properties than one and do this:
Since I am me and you are not me, you are wrong. But that is over-reductive in both directions. Reality is the non-reductive set of necessary parts where you and I are parts and neither of us are sufficient on our own individually.
With regards
PS Reality is A. Just check if you can do non-A in practice and be done with it. That is the same for reality is physical and reality is from God. Neither works in practice for reality as it apparently is for 2 or more humans.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Oh yes. I have it. Truth resides in abandoning prejudice.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The only thing I would take away is just "time" and then focus on the common and collective matters which constitutes life for "you and me" in the very basics.
If you and me needs food, cloth and shelter, we both are right in this and this is common all over the world. If you and I look at a specific star constellation, we both are right, i.e. there are some collective areas and matters on which we can agree without including emotional feelings. This is "Natural Philosophy" too me.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Not quite, because you can live without me living on and you haven't accounted for "life boat" philosophy.
Let me give you a practical example of needs versus wants and where it gets tricky.
I want something so bad, that it boarders a need as psychological and not physical. For that I will physically harm another human.
Is that natural?
Is that common among humans?
Are you really sure and it is always "wrong" and if so, have you checked?
I suspect that you have made a rule about that and consider it universal. But it is not. Because its property is local in you and I can hold another rule.
The "problem" is this:
Someone holds as an individual a rule. That is particular. This rule is universal, and my rule as rule is particular.
You then hold a bias in favor of the universal rule and against the particular rule.
What you overlook is that your rule is not ontological as itself an universal. It is particular as your rule. You individually declare as a particular human, that you can make an in effect universal ontological rule for all humans. You can't.
Please study some more meta-ethics and concrete on how rules exists in practice.
Notice what you in effect are doing here: "The only thing I would take away is just "time" and then focus..." That is you as a particular doing something particular and then declare that now it is universal, because you in effect say so. I in practice then falsify your rule because it is not ontologically universal by doing something else. Another time, space and property. That is it.
You have to learn if you want to do philosophy to catch your own subjectivity and learn the difference between gravity is objective and I am objective. They are not the same. When I am objective, I am still subjective. I just subjectively use my brain in a certain manner. In a weird sense human rational objectivity as for reason and logic are still subjective. Yes, I know.
I know because I have been doing "suspend judgment" for so long and I figured out that I can't in practice. Rationality in itself can't tell you what you ought to do the moment there are 2 or more humans involved. We will both be subjective and the only theoretical rational being is "god or what ever". I am not that and neither are you as you yourself explained:
"The only thing I would take away is just "time" and then focus..."
Look at that and realize it is subjective.
With regards
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Prejudice comes from lack of truth, not the other way around.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
If truth doesn't reside in anything we say then where can it be?
You sound like a Postmodernist - they hold there is no truth,
then claim Postmodernism is the truth. Ha ha ha.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
As a Natural Philosopher I´ll say all this depends on whether we agree to share what is available and to have empathic skills.
But I did not speak about feelings, emotions or egoistic matters. My points were all connected to positive collective matters which are common for all humans.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Yes, we all share a positive, collective love of a piece of land - and we will kill each
other to get it. In America it was Comanche's driving out Apaches, Hispanics driving
out Comanche's, whites driving out Hispanics. Who is "right"? Who "owns" the land?
Who thinks everyone can sit on the same parcel of land together?
I can speak fluent French, but I don't remind French folk of Paul Valéry, and as we get down to nuances my reflexes are from English, not from French. And you can tell by the way I speak that at some point tertiary education and I have crossed paths. You know, in short, that I wasn't a Galilean fisherman till after my adolescence. Therefore you know that if there was a Peter, there's an unmistakable gulf between him and the author of 1 & 2 Peter.
Yes, the translator of "Dead Sea Fish and How to Catch them".
I've read that the Greek in Mark is the crudest of the gospels, meaning Mark was plainly not born to Greek. Mind you, the idea that Mz Isaacs wrote it while Mark thought he was writing to the gas company doesn't lack for appeal.
I can tell you've been studying Donald Trump, whose fans indeed attribute majesty to him. "Majesty'". in other words, is an emotional response and an emotional report. Arguing with the bagel man would provide the missing human dimension, a moment when feet touch ground. Instead it's all staring into space, looking for rainbows.
Donald would never have had the wit to do what Nancy did. Her other option was to suck his insults up, and she didn't. Go Nancy!
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, quite. Both there is one single truth or no truth are to simple.
In practice there are at least 4 kinds of truth, all limited and no one single truth.
So as a joke between 3 humans.
The Universalist: There is a single universal truth.
The universal Relativist: There is no single truth and that is the truth.
Me: Both version are to simple and reality is a bit more messy than that.
Natural science "truth": The laws of science.
Math and logic: The abstract laws of thinking.
Cultural truth: How a given society/group of people believe(shared paradigm/inter subjectivity)
Individual truth: How a given person in particular makes sense of the world and one's own place in it.
Then there are all the meta-version, which try to make no truth at all or an universal truth. They all fail, because in the end rationality is as limited as human mobility. You can't fly be solely flapping your arms and you can't explain everything as with one methodology. That is not unique to you or anybody else. I just happen to know this, because I am an old school skeptic. Not a modern one, who only uses science.
In practice the falsification is the same of both universal claims: Me - I can do it differently in a limited sense than you.
We are playing nothing but regularities and variations. Some claim to found only one, whether is one or no one at all.
I just answer - No, it both cases it is to simple.
As for truth residing in what we say, that is simple. You don't exist, right? That is true, because I have just said it, but it does work quite that way. But on the other hand it is true that I am trying to become a pacifist, because it is true that I am trying.
Your version of truth needs so work.
Here is one place to start:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." -Protagoras.
Figure out how that is true in one sense and not quite so in another. And then notice that both senses can't be reduced away to neither reality is objective or reality is subjective. Even solipsism fails as universal subjectivity.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
This Galilean thing is interesting. They were considered crude to other Jews.
The main reason for this was their EXPOSURE TO SO MANY CULTURES.
Galilee was a crossroad in the Levant. Your average Galilean most likely
spoke more languages than your average southern Judah guy.
I can attest it's hard to learn Greek, but Latin is easy, and many Greeks,
Persians, Parthians, Romans etc would create an imperative to learn
languages. Also, Peter and Andrew, James and John weren't just
fishermen - they had fishing businesses and most likely had hired help
and capital. I am amazed to see how many well to do people followed
Jesus - not necessarily the poor but middle and upper class people who
were influential in their society.
You relate to crude people? You repay bad behavior with bad behavior?
You poke fun of people's sense of dignity?
Lots of people think Jesus had charisma. The Old Testament says that
He would be despised. Jesus didn't have charisma or good looks - he
was the personification of graciousness.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I am not going to sugar-coat it. Emphatic skills are not universal in humans and even those who have it, struggle sometimes with how to deal with those without.
You are to vague in effect, because you have take a messy reality and taken for granted that is as simple as sharing. Not sharing is also natural. Non-empathy is also natural.
You can't prove or otherwise show that sharing and empathy is better. That "is" must be felt inside a given human. You can't show it, because it is not empirical and you can't prove it with rationality. You have to live and believe it. That is what makes it true.
As for philosophy I am skeptic first and foremost. I am not nice to be around, because my "responsibility as chosen by me" is to dismantle any claim of an objective, universal methodology.
"As a Natural Philosopher I´ll say all this depends on whether we agree to share what is available and to have empathic skills."
Yeah, but that is not objective or universal. You are doing a rhetorical trick to the effect of: Can't we agree to agree? That would be better!
Well, no. Not long as however you won't admit that is inter-subjective and requires subjective agreement.
We are doing philosophy and you really should stop conflating objective and subjective.