Questions for the Philosopher
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 14th, 2016, 5:16 pm
Questions for the Philosopher
What is better, to practice asceticism, or hedonism, or possibly both?
Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory? That what is more healing than harmful in general to all is good, and what is more harmful than healing in general to all is bad?
What is "the zone" or "the flow state", is there an inverted version of it?
If there is an inverted flow state, is it possible to always oscillate back and forward from and into the flow state and the inversion of it?
Is it possible to understand mind with mind?
If you isolate a part of your mind through meditation, and use that to understand the rest of your mind, is it possible to snap back into normalcy?
What is your opinion of how life can be determined its worth, how would you measure the value of things in relations to other things?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Philosophy is the original critical examination of anything, particularly 'assumptions'.Solatic wrote:Isn't there a difference between knowing philosophy and practicing it?
There is no avenue of Knowing that is excluded from the philosophical mind. All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy, and the so-called philosopher ignorant of cutting edgs (and beyond) science is no philosopher. He must also be an artist to synthesize original Perspectives/theories!
There are damned few around, considering the slow agonizing death of 'thought'!
...philosophers and not "philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it.
Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory?
No!
From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!
This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!
As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!
You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"
Magic 8-Ball (tm) says; Please insert another quarter for more answers. *__-
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Each question would need a separate thread on its own.
'Knowing' and 'doing' are definitely very different.
For example a coach may know [have knowledge] a lot of his specialty but in most cases they are not an expert in putting their knowledge into action.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
A. Is there a difference between knowing about sex and doing it? In other words, yes:)
Q. What is better, to practice asceticism, or hedonism, or possibly both?
A. Hedonism practiced deeply ultimately leads to asceticism:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/Epicurus' ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism; i.e., he says that the only thing that is intrinsically valuable is one's own pleasure; anything else that has value is valuable merely as a means to securing pleasure for oneself. However, Epicurus has a sophisticated and idiosyncratic view of the nature of pleasure, which leads him to recommend a virtuous, moderately ascetic life as the best means to securing pleasure. This contrasts Epicurus strongly with the Cyrenaics, a group of ancient hedonists who better fit the stereotype of hedonists as recommending a policy of "eat, drink, and be merry."
In other words, if a hedonist is "playing the long game", then s/he will eschew cheap thrills that only lead to later discord.
Q. Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory?
A. Until every entity's cause is aligned, every positive action comes at the expense of someone or something else.
Q. That what is more healing than harmful in general to all is good, and what is more harmful than healing in general to all is bad?
A. Examples: The Sun is generally good and space junk is generally bad. Water is usually good and pollution usually bad. Food is good, poop is bad (although the lizards and flies in my back yard beg to differ regarding the dogs' "outputs").
Q. What is "the zone" or "the flow state", is there an inverted version of it?
A. The zone is deep absorption, where one's focus is deeply on a task, with the sense of self sublimated. The opposite would seem to be the fight-or-flight response.
Q. If there is an inverted flow state, is it possible to always oscillate back and forward from and into the flow state and the inversion of it?
A. There are times when people stress themselves to the point of breakthrough, where they move past prior doubts and fears. No idea about toggling. Generally one prefers not feel stressed, so toggling back there would seem only useful as a character building exercise.
Q. Is it possible to understand mind with mind?
A. ... so asks a mind to some other minds online. That's a question for the future. I suppose it's fair to say that you can't understand minds at all if you have no mind with which to understand.
Q. If you isolate a part of your mind through meditation, and use that to understand the rest of your mind, is it possible to snap back into normalcy?
A. Not in the case of student meditators. It takes a bit of a runup to get back up to speed. I expect that experienced meditators have more control and flexibility in that regard.
Q.What is your opinion of how life can be determined its worth, how would you measure the value of things in relations to other things?
A. There are various ways of grading that are variably subjective - complexity, intelligence, scarcity, desirability, capability, etc. However, every living thing is one small component of this grand entity known as the biosphere, or "life on Earth" so I'm inclined to go postmodern on you here and say that all live is valuable as a "cell" of this larger edifice. So, aside from hard practicalities, ultimate value comparisons are arguably not valid.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Nice set of questions embedded within questions.Solatic wrote:Isn't there a difference between knowing philosophy and practicing it?
What is better, to practice asceticism, or hedonism, or possibly both?
Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory? That what is more healing than harmful in general to all is good, and what is more harmful than healing in general to all is bad?
What is "the zone" or "the flow state", is there an inverted version of it?
If there is an inverted flow state, is it possible to always oscillate back and forward from and into the flow state and the inversion of it?
Is it possible to understand mind with mind?
If you isolate a part of your mind through meditation, and use that to understand the rest of your mind, is it possible to snap back into normalcy?
What is your opinion of how life can be determined its worth, how would you measure the value of things in relations to other things?
Which one holds your attention the most? OR what underlying theme do you think runs through most/all of them?
Be specific or go read mysticism and see if that helps you focus.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 14th, 2016, 5:16 pm
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Thanks man! I mean honestly, I could have answered these questions myself, but it was good to see someone else's take upon them. And thank you especially for elaborating the way you did! Puts a new spin on some of the ideas I am working through.Greta wrote:Q. Isn't there a difference between knowing philosophy and practicing it?
A. Is there a difference between knowing about sex and doing it? In other words, yes:)
Q. What is better, to practice asceticism, or hedonism, or possibly both?
A. Hedonism practiced deeply ultimately leads to asceticism:In other words, if a hedonist is "playing the long game", then s/he will eschew cheap thrills that only lead to later discord.Epicurus' ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism; i.e., he says that the only thing that is intrinsically valuable is one's own pleasure; anything else that has value is valuable merely as a means to securing pleasure for oneself. However, Epicurus has a sophisticated and idiosyncratic view of the nature of pleasure, which leads him to recommend a virtuous, moderately ascetic life as the best means to securing pleasure. This contrasts Epicurus strongly with the Cyrenaics, a group of ancient hedonists who better fit the stereotype of hedonists as recommending a policy of "eat, drink, and be merry."
Q. Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory?
A. Until every entity's cause is aligned, every positive action comes at the expense of someone or something else.
Q. That what is more healing than harmful in general to all is good, and what is more harmful than healing in general to all is bad?
A. Examples: The Sun is generally good and space junk is generally bad. Water is usually good and pollution usually bad. Food is good, poop is bad (although the lizards and flies in my back yard beg to differ regarding the dogs' "outputs").
Q. What is "the zone" or "the flow state", is there an inverted version of it?
A. The zone is deep absorption, where one's focus is deeply on a task, with the sense of self sublimated. The opposite would seem to be the fight-or-flight response.
Q. If there is an inverted flow state, is it possible to always oscillate back and forward from and into the flow state and the inversion of it?
A. There are times when people stress themselves to the point of breakthrough, where they move past prior doubts and fears. No idea about toggling. Generally one prefers not feel stressed, so toggling back there would seem only useful as a character building exercise.
Q. Is it possible to understand mind with mind?
A. ... so asks a mind to some other minds online. That's a question for the future. I suppose it's fair to say that you can't understand minds at all if you have no mind with which to understand.
Q. If you isolate a part of your mind through meditation, and use that to understand the rest of your mind, is it possible to snap back into normalcy?
A. Not in the case of student meditators. It takes a bit of a runup to get back up to speed. I expect that experienced meditators have more control and flexibility in that regard.
Q.What is your opinion of how life can be determined its worth, how would you measure the value of things in relations to other things?
A. There are various ways of grading that are variably subjective - complexity, intelligence, scarcity, desirability, capability, etc. However, every living thing is one small component of this grand entity known as the biosphere, or "life on Earth" so I'm inclined to go postmodern on you here and say that all live is valuable as a "cell" of this larger edifice. So, aside from hard practicalities, ultimate value comparisons are arguably not valid.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 14th, 2016, 5:16 pm
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
I'd say, the possibility of understanding mind with mind, hold's my attention the most.Burning ghost wrote:Nice set of questions embedded within questions.Solatic wrote:Isn't there a difference between knowing philosophy and practicing it?
What is better, to practice asceticism, or hedonism, or possibly both?
Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory? That what is more healing than harmful in general to all is good, and what is more harmful than healing in general to all is bad?
What is "the zone" or "the flow state", is there an inverted version of it?
If there is an inverted flow state, is it possible to always oscillate back and forward from and into the flow state and the inversion of it?
Is it possible to understand mind with mind?
If you isolate a part of your mind through meditation, and use that to understand the rest of your mind, is it possible to snap back into normalcy?
What is your opinion of how life can be determined its worth, how would you measure the value of things in relations to other things?
Which one holds your attention the most? OR what underlying theme do you think runs through most/all of them?
Be specific or go read mysticism and see if that helps you focus.
I think the underlying theme, to me personally, is introspecting into the human volition and its relation to everything around.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 14th, 2016, 5:16 pm
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Morality, to me, is just a code of ethics that guide to help the individual become a better judge of character to situations.Namelesss wrote:Philosophy is the original critical examination of anything, particularly 'assumptions'.Solatic wrote:Isn't there a difference between knowing philosophy and practicing it?
There is no avenue of Knowing that is excluded from the philosophical mind. All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy, and the so-called philosopher ignorant of cutting edgs (and beyond) science is no philosopher. He must also be an artist to synthesize original Perspectives/theories!
There are damned few around, considering the slow agonizing death of 'thought'!
...philosophers and not "philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it.
Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory?
No!
From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!
This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!
As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!
You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"
Magic 8-Ball (tm) says; Please insert another quarter for more answers. *__-
What do you think repentance is? It's to ask God for forgiveness and to promise Him that you will change accordingly because of sin, both at the same time.
As for righteousness? Let's just say the Christian, admits it when they do wrong, and the sinner only thinks themselves right. Just as much as, how if you teach a wise man, he'll be more wiser, teach a fool, and he will be wroth with you.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Not really. "Practicing" philosophy merely means understanding others philosophies and developing your own. Philosophy, by itself, is not a practical endeavor. What is practical is applying a philosophy to one's daily life (if possible).Solatic wrote:Isn't there a difference between knowing philosophy and practicing it?
Neither. You shouldn't deny yourself things, nor does just doing what you feel like in the moment lead to happiness.Solatic wrote:What is better, to practice asceticism, or hedonism, or possibly both?
Do you mean by "all" all living things, or just Man? The correct answer depends on this.Solatic wrote:Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory? That what is more healing than harmful in general to all is good, and what is more harmful than healing in general to all is bad?
Solatic wrote:What is "the zone" or "the flow state", is there an inverted version of it?
Never heard of those things. Elaborate.Solatic wrote:If there is an inverted flow state, is it possible to always oscillate back and forward from and into the flow state and the inversion of it?
Not with the ordinary mind, no. The subjective mind (the mind we know) cannot understand itself. An objective mind, however, can. So it depends on what or who's mind we're talking about.Solatic wrote:Is it possible to understand mind with mind?
A mind cannot understand itself until it gets outside of its own boundaries (i.e. can be objective about itself), and a mind cannot learn to do that on its own. It can only learn that feat from another mind which has already achieved that.
Yes, but meditation is an ordinarily misunderstood practice. Discussing this should be an independent thread. All I can say in general is that most people don't understand what the practice of meditation is all about in the least.Solatic wrote:If you isolate a part of your mind through meditation, and use that to understand the rest of your mind, is it possible to snap back into normalcy?
In my view, the Universe Itself is a living thing, a conscious being. It's the most important entity by definition, since it is Everything. All other entities are merely parts of it.Solatic wrote:What is your opinion of how life can be determined its worth, how would you measure the value of things in relations to other things?
After that, living beings are ranked by how close they are to this Absolute Universal Being. So a Being which was directly created by the Universe, is 'higher' or 'more advanced' or 'more important' than a Being which was created by a Being which was created by a Being which was created by the Primordial Consciousness itself.
And Man is fairly low on the food chain, by a magnitude of at least several levels....
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Solatic wrote:Can morality be absolute and universal with this theory?
Namelesss wrote:No!
From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!
This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!
As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!
You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"
Magic 8-Ball (tm) says; Please insert another quarter for more answers. *__-
Morality, to me, is just a code of ethics that guide to help the individual become a better judge of character to situations.
What was the original forbidden fruit; knowledge of 'good' and 'evil'!
Every time that we use that knowledge, to judge 'others', we, once again, partake of that initial sin! One more nail in Jesus' hands driven by our vanity!
Yes. morality well practiced makes you a practiced judge of 'others'. Pride is still Pride, the only sin!
What do you think repentance is? It's to ask God for forgiveness and to promise Him that you will change accordingly because of sin, both at the same time.
That might be what the bumpersticker says, but I do not agree with your definition; it flies in the face of Reality.
Besides, the scriptures warn against making 'promises' to God! What vanity! Are 'we' in control of the Universe? Of tomorrow?
Yeah, well, 'you' can just say that, but my experience seems to differ, greatly!As for righteousness? Let's just say the Christian, admits it when they do wrong, and the sinner only thinks themselves right.
Why do you separate the 'sinner' from the Xtian? They are one and the same.
And admits? Only after being caught on their office cam bent over the desk with the copyboy!!
And yeah, again.Just as much as, how if you teach a wise man, he'll be more wiser, teach a fool, and he will be wroth with you.
If all the teachings and words of wisdom made a fart in the breeze difference, the planet would be a Utopia by now, not the festering cesspool of pus that seems to be it's present state, throughout history!
Just like the other end; punishment! All insanity as we do not haver 'free-will/choice', so words of wisdom are useless and punishment is insanity!
Jesus is only about a single state of being; unconditional Love/Enlightenment!
In which Universal state, there is no 'good/evil/sin' to be seen! Wherever you look, We see the Beloved!
We do not judge ourselves, either, so there is no inner insane drama of repentance and forgiveness and punishment...
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
Then you need to think about, and explain, what you mean by "understanding", "mind", "attention", "theme", 'introspection", "human", "volition", "relation", "everything" and "around".I'd say, the possibility of understanding mind with mind, hold's my attention the most.
I think the underlying theme, to me personally, is introspecting into the human volition and its relation to everything around.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Questions for the Philosopher
I am at the point of life where major decisions are in the past, I am now almost 92 years old, and still enmeshed in curiosity as to what my life is about. I do not indulge in beliefs common to most religions so I think this short peep into the awareness of the universe is all there is for me. This is a strong indication of my system of values and a great deal of the commonly accepted values mean very little to me. I have held all sorts of jobs from a Good Humor ice cream pushcart salesman to an expert in industrial design for a United Nations project and cannot say which was more satisfactory. I have never discovered much if any pleasure in what most people enjoy and I have tried quite a few. My biggest quandary is why most of civilization is directed into hierarchies of domination to control populations and destroy a good deal of the gifts that the planet offers us to live an equable and reasonable life.
At this end of my life I am most delighted to live a bit longer but my best analysis is that I have spent my time in something like a Marx Brothers comedy and I shall pass away with a grin of consternation and let it go at that. I am quite unsure if this covers any philosophical attitude.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023