Philosophy Discussion

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: understanding reality

scottmartinlocke — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:22:28 GMT

Author: scottmartinlocke
Subject: understanding reality
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:22 pm (GMT -5)

if we really understad reality we have to come to terms with the inner mind as well as physical reality.
intuition works just only so far; the rest of reality is either in your mind or in the actual world; but what of spiritual reality? can it be confirmed by our inherent intuition and relative understanding of the principles of spirit and soul?

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: Ignorance = Bliss?

Ron C. de Weijze — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:14:13 GMT

Author: Ron C. de Weijze
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:14 pm (GMT -5)

Quote:

The trouble begins when ignorance disolves into knowledge.

You are in trouble when knowledge of your environment isn't what you sense of your environment, when knowledge is wrong. However when you understand it, can anticipate it (trust, expect, suspect, predict, believe and intend), then your troubles are over and the beginnings of bliss are restored. Ignorance is then just what you don't need to know.
_________________
Researching and developing a practical philosophy of 'Constructive Recollection'.

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: Ignorance = Bliss?

nameless — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:13:24 GMT

Author: nameless
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:13 pm (GMT -5)

Ignorance IS bliss.
The trouble begins when ignorance disolves into knowledge.
One can be blissfully ignorant of the truck bearing down on you. Once that ignorance becomes actual knowledge (experience of being run over) the 'bliss' is ended and painful knowledge is gained.

Philosophy of Religion :: I am new

haribol acharya — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:40:41 GMT

Author: haribol acharya
Subject: I am new
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:40 am (GMT -5)

I am new on this forum. I like this forum very much for a simple reason that it offers range of subjects I feel like sharing.

I am afraid lest the moderator censors me. I do not the range or the borderline I must be in.

My subjects of interest, particularly to share with all on this forum is philosophy, religions and cultural issues.

I am from the east, a country you may know little of called Nepal. Nepal, to introduce, is a country of innumerable deities and gods. Nepal is economically a poor country and now politically getting transformed. There was monarchism in Nepal for centuries and now it is a republic.

I am by birth a Hindu. I speak Nepali and I learned English in due course of time and am poorer at this language, probably than the rest of you.

Yet with the firm belief that I will advance I took this venture to introduce myself to you.

Philosophy of Religion :: RE: If there is a God, why is there evil?

haribol acharya — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:29:45 GMT

Author: haribol acharya
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:29 am (GMT -5)

captain_crunk wrote:

My guess is simply due to free will (natural disasters, obviously, don't really have much to do with human free will; as for natural disasters, I think they happen because, although God created everything and whatnot, he lets the world to itself in some aspects to function without his direct control).
I've pondered this myself as well. What do you think?

This is a question that intrigues me at all times. I always think if God is really merciful the gulf between the rich and poor would be leveled.

Philosophy of Religion :: RE: The non-dogmatic philosophy of J. Krishnamurti

haribol acharya — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:25:57 GMT

Author: haribol acharya
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:25 am (GMT -5)

Krishnamurti appealed and still appeals to me immeasurably. He was a man uncorrupted by religious and cultural dogmas, and a man of universal love and sympathy.

I have read him immensely and next to K I love reading Osho.

These two philosophers, I do not say Indians but India born are unbeatable.

I have racks of books of these two philosophers. They never tangled my mind or did not create any bondage in life but liberated the mind.

They are great liberators. Their books are really soul boggling and unputdownable as a matter of fact.

Philosophy of Religion :: RE: The non-dogmatic philosophy of J. Krishnamurti

haribol acharya — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:22:10 GMT

Author: haribol acharya
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:22 am (GMT -5)

Krishnamurti appealed and still appeals to me immeasurably. He was a man uncorrupted by religious and cultural dogmas, and a man of universal love and sympathy.

I have read him immensely and next to K I love reading Osho.

These two philosphers, I do not say

Philosophy of Religion :: RE: A meeting with the Eternal

haribol acharya — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:14:24 GMT

Author: haribol acharya
Subject: Re: A meeting with the Eternal
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:14 am (GMT -5)

jb wrote:

Hi,
Below an article - on a 'happening' -
I have written sometime ago,
in case of interest.
(it has been published in subject-related magazine) -
Regards,
jb

*

A meeting with the Eternal

Many years ago I was walking down the street in a quiet area of the town. It was sunny
and the gardens were green. There was a certain awareness and sensitivity. Then suddenly,
as though new senses were
opening, the presence of the eternal was there.

The word `eternal' was not the outcome of conclusive reasoning or evaluation, as when
you look at the skies and think "this universe must be infinite and must have always
been there" and then see it according to the conceptual conclusion. It was rather like
tasting
honey and later calling it `sweet' for the sake of communication. Nevertheless, the mind
could exclaim with wonder: "Goodness me! There is something that corresponds to the word
`eternal'!"

The body was like a fish in this ocean of multi-directional energy and indestructible,
immense space, something self-sustained, completely independent and containing every
sound and being. `My' identity was that and, therefore, no fear. I was not feeling `high
'and it was not an `experience'. (Only on that day did I see what J. Krishnamurti meant
by the mind-boggling statement that you cannot experience Truth.)

It was not a momentary flash of `insight' or a psychosomatic, merely personal intensity;
it was a `standing outside 'of that field, as the word `ecstasy' implies. `I' felt like
a baby learning to crawl, to walk. My `identity' could move from being responsible as a
`body-person' soberly relating to another (much more sober, sane, factual than in the
`normal' state) to being that endless expanse of living space.
And it was there the whole day.

For a moment a fearful thought arose: "What if it will disappear?"
The answer was instantaneous: "It is obvious that it has always been here and it will
always be here and everywhere, regardless of whether the perception of it closes its
doors or not".
The following day it was `gone'.

Seeing that it was not the result or creation of an ambitious ego and that it had nothing
to do with `me', there was no regret or despair upon its `ending'. The `me' naturally
confessed its `impotence' in the face of this immensity and `prostrated', not
emotionally but as a matter of fact, before it.

Yes, it was a rare jewel, the only eternal jewel, unending Life itself...

Perhaps it was a gift. And yet at times I wonder: "What was the point, significance of
one day lived in Eternity followed by its `disappearance'? Was there anything of lasting
value in this event?
Perhaps, perhaps not.�

As for its `re-appearance', as far as I know the mere memory of it and the efforts
motivated by this memory can never re-discover or re-produce it. It is not a product. The
event cannot be used. And yet there it was!

But now that �I' am back, I cannot help asking myself on occasion: "This interest you
have in knowing yourself, is it not motivated by this remembrance?"
I would say no. It is more like what K. once said, to the effect that a really interested
man who approaches life simply and is aware of suffering, asks whether there is a
different way to live.

JB.

In point of fact I am thrilled at sharing the feeling with you. You too are a creature in miniature.

I too have undergone some experiences in life, indeed ecstatic experiences in life, but such experiences can not be worded or phrased in an ordinary sense. Such experiences are likened to flashlights and you will see it and immediately they vanish. Where? We can not say.

Anyway I am really elated to share with you or reading yours I can relive the moment.

On this thread this is my first start and I began with this one of all for a simple reason that it touched me beyond words. I do not know how will you take my response.

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: What are emotions? How do they work?

Sanctuary — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:54:47 GMT

Author: Sanctuary
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:54 am (GMT -5)

When we consider 'what are emotions', we must not forget in our reasoning we, the human species is in flux. It is reasonable to posit a qualification of our emotions. In the first instance i simply proffer in to the debate that there appear's to be a heirarchy of emotions in terms of their complexity, and whether we as subjects control them, observe them in us, or remain unaware or their fundamental workings within us.

Clearly, as we progress as a species; the quailty and quantity of emotions ( and our interst in them as phenomenom)have changed. What i feel is a narcissim in the present musings is the debate seeks to contextualise emotions as something that exists confined within the limits of our physiology, While this might be true, it is of little consequence in examining emotioms. In the same way evey human being has a body, there are many people in the world who's presence have influenced me, without my ever knowing the body that contains the subject/object of their person. Emotions are simillar in my view. Whatever they are, they are surely a sum part of their internal and external effect. We are mediators, we steward our internal world and our external world, a thorough examination of phenomenom such as emotion most undertake an integrity of inner and outer life. To do this we need as much subjective input from all who experience 'emotions', since we the examiner cannot see beyond our location as beings, we can only hope the experiential account of others will offer us grounds to measure difference and thus grasp if possible, an objective but subject centred view of emotions. Like consciouness, we extend ourselves beyond the limits of the contents of our space suits in a vaccum, we use the experience of this exptention to avouid alienation; our chief route of communication if to obseve the effect of our emotions in others, thus disabling the nihilism of not seeing past our own object body and terminal isolation. Emotions are in flux: qualitatlively, quantatatively, linearly and progressively.

Philosophy of Politics :: RE: Anarchism

anarchyisbliss — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:30:17 GMT

Author: anarchyisbliss
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:30 am (GMT -5)

Celebration2000 wrote:

How would an anarchist, or communist-anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist community deal with theft, extortion, etc. (like, if someone refused to help others, and just took what they wanted)?

Theft - Well, either (a) you could murder who ever stole from you and fear no retribution from the police, or (b) you could just ask for your property back nicely - there is still such a thing as kindness by the way. or (c) you could hold an investigation and find out who did it and psychologically terrorize them through silent treatment and psychological exile until they feel so lonely that they are coerced into giving back the property.

I think the idea of a mass community murder would deter people from theft/extortion/etc.
_________________
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Einstein

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: "Art is a social illusion and a waste of time"

anarchyisbliss — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:21:21 GMT

Author: anarchyisbliss
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:21 am (GMT -5)

shinobi-13 wrote:

In a way yes.

ok thats good enough for me then.
_________________
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Einstein

General Philosophy Forum :: Hello everybody

ManickzJamiyecz — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:00:12 GMT

Author: ManickzJamiyecz
Subject: Hello everybody
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:00 am (GMT -5)

How its going?

Philosophy of Religion :: WHERE'S A MODERATOR??

nameless — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:21:27 GMT

Author: nameless
Subject: WHERE'S A MODERATOR??
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:21 am (GMT -5)

Are there no moderators that care about this site? Someone to sweep up jb's (and other idiots) little piles of spammish crap posted all over the place, duplicates at that. It is becomming less and less worth my time to pick my way through and around all of those obsessive spammish piles!
GOOD LUCK

Philosophy of Religion :: RE: A meeting with the Eternal

nameless — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:16:34 GMT

Author: nameless
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:16 am (GMT -5)

WHERE IS A MODERATOR THAT WILL DELETE ALL OF THIS 'OBSESSIVE' SPAMMER'S INCESSANT POSTS. THIS IS RUINING A GOOD FORUM. WITHOUT LIVE MODERATORS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. EVERY COMPULSIVE AND JUVENILE IDIOT ON A MISSION FROM GOD PISSES ALL OVER THE PLACE!! PERSONALLY, I'M READY TO LEAVE RATHER THAN STUMBLE THROUGH THIS IDIOTS 'PILES' ALL OVER THE PLACE!

THERE IS NO 'REPORT' FUNCTION? NO MODERATION? NO ONE GIVES ENOUGH OF A CRAP TO CLEAN OUT THE GARBAGE HERE? = A DEAD SITE. GOOD LUCK.

Ethics and Morality :: RE: How do you feel about vengeance?

nameless — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:55:45 GMT

Author: nameless
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:55 am (GMT -5)

Vengence is an anachronistic attavism. Perhaps an attavistic anachronism. Suffer not an enemy to live as he'll be back..
'Vengence' doesn't exist in 'my' worlds as I don't 'believe' in 'free-will' or 'choice' or 'cause and effect', hence there can be no personal 'responsibility' for one's behavior. I am more inclined to determine and offer 'healing' rather than 'retribution/punishment'. The 'win/win' concept is growing and the win/lose is dying. Good riddance.
'Compassion' vs 'vengence'? I find that 'vengence' falls into the same 'base and low' behavior as any other predatory and victimizing criminal. More of the same.
I find myself moved to 'compassion' the more that I get to know the 'perp'. One cannot hate someone that one gets to know beyond the superficial.
'Vengance' is already obsolete.
Peace

General Philosophy Forum :: RE: "Art is a social illusion and a waste of time"

shinobi-13 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:50:45 GMT

Author: shinobi-13
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:50 am (GMT -5)

In a way yes.

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: What are emotions? How do they work?

pjkeeley — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:09:32 GMT

Author: pjkeeley
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:09 am (GMT -5)

Celebration2000 wrote:

How do certain things we hear/see affect the chemical activity within us?

The chemical activity is a response regulated by the brain and triggered by certain stimuli. So for example if you see something that you associate with happiness (a visual stimulus), your optic nerves send this to your brain and the brain will automatically release seratonin, which causes the feeling of happiness. Why certain stimuli cause certain responses in the brain is a more complicated question. It has to do with our individual psychological make-up (some of us are scared of certain things because of certain past experiences, for example), and also to do with genetics (happiness after sex is an evolved reaction to benefit reproduction).

Hope that answers your question.

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: Who are you?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:02:11 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:02 pm (GMT -5)

I'm Alex, i live in Winnipeg (look it up), i work in the deli, i'm 16.

A more philosophical answer, that i have came up with when asked the same question, was
"I am the whole of my beliefs, actions , views, interactions, feelings, and the root of what others think, do, will think, will do, have thought, and have done to me, all in the past, present, and future"

To add on to my first part, i'm atheist in practice, agnostic in theory. I will fight for my life and liberty to the death. My political and economic views would be classified as communist-anarchist. I listen mostly to heavy metal and it's sub-genres. I also like Classic and other kinds of rock. (The Doors, Pink Floyd, Elvis Presley, The Cars and others)

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: Ignorance = Bliss?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:54:48 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Subject: Ignorance = Bliss?
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:54 pm (GMT -5)

I want to disagree, but i can't. It seems the more i learn, the more i suffer. I remember when i was a child...i wasn't painless, but i had less pain than i do now. What do you think?

Epistemology and Metaphysics :: RE: What are emotions? How do they work?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:36:04 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:36 pm (GMT -5)

I do agree to the statement that emotions are chemical reactions within our bodies, but another question arises : How do certain things we hear/see (not touch, because it is interacting directly with the bodies systems) affect the reactions? How does one sight make the chemicals in our bodies make us happy, and the other sight makes us furious, sad, hopeless? Such as what i'm saying, if you were in chemistry, well at least from what i understand, the sounds/sights around a chemical reaction in progress does only affects the outcome very minimally, if anything. The answer to that is chemicals don't have ears or eyes. (yeah, i answer my own questions and i debate with myself). However, all sounds are just vibrating air waves and sights are just light reflecting off objects. But how do different sounds, alter the chemical activity in our bodies. Intensity is ruled out, because someone can shout "I love you", and they can shout "I'm gonna kill you". I'm trying to make this question as clear as possible. the question is again, if you got lost : How do certain things we hear/see affect the chemical activity within us?

Ethics and Morality :: RE: How do you feel about vengeance?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:23:42 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:23 pm (GMT -5)

I find some of those revenge quotes quite interesting, and convincing.
"Revenge is a confession to pain" must be my favourite : if you act (and yes ACT, it might have actually harmed you) like it didn't harm you, you are showing the "offender"'s efforts are futile, and that he might lack intelligence for making a useless attempt.

I think i might be perverting the whole idea of the proverb...but it's how i interpretted it.

Ethics and Morality :: RE: Why do people murder?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:16:29 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:16 pm (GMT -5)

I would murder for self-defense
and I use self-defense as a VERY broad term, not just physical, such as from someone trying to murder ME, but from harming me emotionally, such as murder out of passion, (Jealousy, lust, you know, cardinal sin stuff) but also out of unreciprocated "love" (i do not consider unreciprocated love "love") in the terms that the one I love will couple with another, and that other is harming me emotionally and since i want to get rid of the emotional pain, i get rid of the source i.e the other man.
I would also murder to prevent future harm, such as setting an example, or thinking that someone doesn't like me.
Although i do admit to conspiracy to commit murder, in the way of the first two categories that i mentioned (there are also many more that i did not), I find my passion isn't strong enough to fuel such an act, and that the negative outweighs the positive.

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: What music do you listen to?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:58:51 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:58 pm (GMT -5)

But i also listen to the Doors, and Pink Floyd + Elvis, and alot of classic rock (when i'm happy, which is not as often as i would like)

Philosophers' Lounge :: RE: What music do you listen to?

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:57:24 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:57 pm (GMT -5)

I listen mostly to metal, such as bands like Rammstein, Killswitch Engage, Throwdown (just their new stuff mostly), Bathory, OOMPH!, Megaherz, KMFDM (more industrial),Eisbrecher, In Extremo, Judas Priest, Anathema, Opeth...
they really only affect me emotionally...probably not for the better though...i tend to feel more aggressive and have more aggressive thoughts...usually with my invidual struggles (which I find are petty, and is "immoral" so-to-say to have them affect others.)

Philosophy of Politics :: RE: Anarchism

Celebration2000 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:46:04 GMT

Author: Celebration2000
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:46 pm (GMT -5)

How would an anarchist, or communist-anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist community deal with theft, extortion, etc. (like, if someone refused to help others, and just took what they wanted)?