The Futility of Reason

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
Again pure intuition has to be genuine.
Again you offer no explanation of what this means. Is there a difference between pure and impure intuition? Must what one intuits be true or is it only true that they intuit it?
Could we agree that understanding intuition is an aspect of psychology that we cannot prove? Do you agree with this paragraph?
Are these part of the same question or two different questions? Understanding intuition as an aspect of psychology is quite different than understanding intuition epistemologically. The paragraph addresses the question you are avoiding. I don’t know what proof has to do with a psychological understanding of intuition.

Why do you evade what is a simple question: is intuition infallible?
In short, in order to have knowledge (justified true belief)


In short, this is anachronistic. Knowledge is not for Plato justified true belief. The scholarship in the last fifty years or so makes this clear.
… we have to transcend the ever-changing flux of the physical world and grasp a permanent rational order behind the flux …
It is not a rational order. If it were it could be grasped by reason, but see the Divided Line (the one I link to), reason (dianoia) cannot grasp the higher Forms.
This "grasping" is an intellectual act of the mind, which, in its purest manifestation, is exclusively formal (i.e., mathematical).
Again, see the Divided Line and the distinction between the mathematical, which can be grasped by reason, and the Forms, which cannot. The Good is not a mathematical object. It is seen directly by the mind in a way that is analogous to the eyes seeing what is before them.
Such an intellectual act can take place only if there are certain innate ideas upon which it can be based.
But after suggesting the existing of such innate ideas the dialogues always show that such an idea is problematic. Innate ideas are not even mentioned in the Republic.
Knowing, then, is an act of making the observable world intelligible by showing how it is related to an eternal order of intelligible truths.
No, knowledge is the grasping of these intelligible truths. One cannot show the relation unless one first knows the eternal intelligible truths.
Physical objects are real only insofar as they are intelligible, but they can be intelligible only in terms of that which does not change.
Plato was not an idealist and did not deny the reality of the changing physical world.
But since the visible world is constantly changing, it cannot be used as the basis for identifying what things are.
Close, but misleading. We do not need knowledge of the Forms to identify a horse or a man. We would, however, need knowledge of the Forms to know what the truth, beauty, justice, and the good are.
Look at the diagram at the end of that section. Is there anything you disagree with?
Here is a clearer and more accurate diagram of the divided line:

books.google.com/books?id=TofYaAFbloQC& ... mp;f=false

Note the confusion in your diagram regarding the intelligible realm.
“universal in the particular”
That is Aristotle not Plato, and he arrives at the distinction rationally.
… the balance of heart and mind which leads one on the inner path of "being" directed towards the “Good.”
Once again you have mistaken Plato’s image for the truth. The link I provided contains the whole of Bloom’s excellent translation of the Republic. Find the section where Socrates is pressed to say what the Good itself is. Pay careful attention to what he says. There are two problems: first, they would still not know what the Good is, and, second, Socrates himself does not know what it is. The whole thing is an image of what he says "seems most likely".

Compare also, the description of the philosopher in the Republic with the description in the Symposium. The philosopher in the Symposium is a lover of wisdom, one who pursues wisdom, but does not possess it. Only the gods possess wisdom. This fits the description given in the Apology. Both the Symposium and the Apology make a distinction between human and divine wisdom. The philosopher possesses human wisdom, which is knowledge of one’s ignorance. In the Republic, however, there is a shift from the lover of wisdom to the possessor of wisdom that occurs when one sees the Forms themselves. The philosopher of the Republic is a god.

Nowhere in the Platonic literature do we find such gods. Socrates, the paradigmatic philosopher possessed human not divine wisdom. He knew he was ignorant, but was wiser than all others because he knew he did not know. His image of true knowledge was not based on transcendent experience but rather serves to show the gap between the truth itself, which we do not possess, and the opinions we do.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Vijaydevani »

Nick_A wrote: Vijay wrote:
You seem to be ignoring the basic flaw in your OP. You are trying to use reason to justify the futility of reason. That is just wrong at so many different levels.
Yes, the truly intelligent person has experienced the futility of reason. Einstein wrote of it as did Simone Weil and many others. They did because they were intelligent people. For example Simone wrote:
“We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.” Simone Weil
Only real intelligence has the humility to admit its limitations.
And that is what comes from idol worship. That sentence does not even make any sense. It is just the kind of profound stuff that Hindu swamis make up to attract victims. If the mind cannot comprehend it how can it define it as more real or less real? I think you just love statements which sound profound. You should look at the substance.

I have the intelligence to admit my limitations. I know what I don't know. I know my mind is not the equal of God. I know that it is impossible for anyone to say that God transcends time and space because that would have to be experienced by a human mind making the human mind the equal of God. You seem to think this is possible. Not only do you think it is possible you KNOW that God transcends time and space without having the ability to experience it. I think I definitely have a better concept of the limits of my intelligence.

Like Iapetus has pointed out, you seem to ignore the questions which make you uncomfortable. So let me remind you: You seem to suggest that man has the ability to mentally transcend time and space and experience God. Can you explain how that is possible without making the mind God? Unless you suggest that a lot of things can transcend time and space and God is just one of them. I can understand that we cannot ask for evidence of God as Ormond has said that we cannot understand the scale of God. But can we ask for evidence of this ability of the human mind, or is that also covered by the Law of Scales?

-- Updated September 22nd, 2016, 8:43 am to add the following --

A correction: I know what I don't know. I even know that there are unknowns which I don't even know I don't know.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Fooloso4 wrote:
Why do you evade what is a simple question: is intuition infallible?
Yes. I believe pure intuition is an objective experience so is infallible. If the experience is subjective, then it is imagination. Psychology provides an explanation of the origin of intuition if it exists. You are free to accept or deny the potential for objective intuitive experiences. I’m just providing a modern psychological explanation for it. This is theory. Take from it what you will.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ra ... -intuition
Scientists have discovered that humans appear to have two, very different “operating systems.” System 1 is our quick, instinctual, and often subconsciousway of operating – it is controlled by our right brain and by other parts of our brain that have been around since prehistoric times, known as the “limbic” and reptilian” parts of our brain. System 2 is our slower, more analytical, and conscious way of operating – it is controlled by our left brain and by newer parts of our brain that have only developed since prehistoric times (also known as the “neocortex”). Researchers have found that intuition is part of System 1, which is why it comes on so rapidly and often does not make rational sense to us. In other words, intuitive decisions are not something that we have thought out carefully with reason, but rather choices that have arisen quickly out of instinct……….
In short, this is anachronistic. Knowledge is not for Plato justified true belief. The scholarship in the last fifty years or so makes this clear.

If knowledge isn’t verified experience, what is it?
It is not a rational order. If it were it could be grasped by reason, but see the Divided Line (the one I link to), reason (dianoia) cannot grasp the higher Forms.

True. The futility of reason.
But after suggesting the existing of such innate ideas the dialogues always show that such an idea is problematic. Innate ideas are not even mentioned in the Republic.
Don’t forget that the purpose of the dialogues is to further remembrance as opposed to parroting:
"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus
Plato was not an idealist and did not deny the reality of the changing physical world.
Who says he did. Objective knowledge and opinions simultaneously exist on different levels of reality.
Nowhere in the Platonic literature do we find such gods. Socrates, the paradigmatic philosopher possessed human not divine wisdom. He knew he was ignorant, but was wiser than all others because he knew he did not know. His image of true knowledge was not based on transcendent experience but rather serves to show the gap between the truth itself, which we do not possess, and the opinions we do.
Now you sound like me. I’ve often written that the foundation for philosophy is admitting ones nothingness. That goes over like a lead balloon. But in order to realistically come to this conclusion a person must have had experiences allowing them to experience a level of reality greater than themselves. Experts don’t want to here that.

-- Updated Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:43 pm to add the following --

vijay wrote
Yes, the truly intelligent person has experienced the futility of reason. Einstein wrote of it as did Simone Weil and many others. They did because they were intelligent people. For example Simone wrote:

“We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.” Simone Weil


Only real intelligence has the humility to admit its limitations.

And that is what comes from idol worship. That sentence does not even make any sense. It is just the kind of profound stuff that Hindu swamis make up to attract victims. If the mind cannot comprehend it how can it define it as more real or less real? I think you just love statements which sound profound. You should look at the substance.
Simone is quoted above and I previously quoted Einstein who wrote. "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble". What idols are they worshiping? Do you believe that humility is a weakness that only invites Hindu swamis to take advantage of? Granted that often happens but when dealing with those like Einstein and Simone, these charlatans will quickly find themselves over matched.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Vijaydevani »

Nick_A wrote:
Scientists have discovered that humans appear to have two, very different “operating systems.” System 1 is our quick, instinctual, and often subconsciousway of operating – it is controlled by our right brain and by other parts of our brain that have been around since prehistoric times, known as the “limbic” and reptilian” parts of our brain. System 2 is our slower, more analytical, and conscious way of operating – it is controlled by our left brain and by newer parts of our brain that have only developed since prehistoric times (also known as the “neocortex”). Researchers have found that intuition is part of System 1, which is why it comes on so rapidly and often does not make rational sense to us. In other words, intuitive decisions are not something that we have thought out carefully with reason, but rather choices that have arisen quickly out of instinct……….
This would mean that reptiles had pure intuition and had intrinsic transcendental knowledge, wouldn't it? Their brains were better suited to understanding God, the meaning and purpose of life etc. because it was unhindered by reason at all. Also, the transcendental nature of the knowledge of God and everything else would take care of the lack of a developed brain and therefore prehistoric reptiles would be transcendentally wise, capable of sophisticated communication means. So maybe it is time to look for the written literature of reptiles.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Burning ghost »

Nick_A -

This is general philosophy. You have started a thread with quote from the bible and instantly alienated most of the readers.

Understand the audience.
AKA badgerjelly
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Burning ghost wrote:Nick_A -

This is general philosophy. You have started a thread with quote from the bible and instantly alienated most of the readers.

Understand the audience.
I'd prefer to give them more credit and not be slaves to bigotry.

From Book 6 of the Republic
Having made these claims, Socrates asks Glaucon, "...which of the gods in heaven can you put down as cause and master of this, whose light makes our sight see so beautifully and the things to be seen?" (508a) Glaucon responds that both he and all others would answer that this is the sun. Analogously, Socrates says, as the sun illuminates the visible with light so the idea of goodness illuminates the intelligible with truth, which in turn makes it possible for people to have knowledge. Also, as the eye's ability to see is made possible by the light of the sun so the soul's ability to know is made possible by the truth of goodness.
Does this in any way contradict the Corinthians quote? Without the light we remain in darkness. Some prefer to remain in the darkness of Plato's cave and others invite the light for the sake of truth. What is the problem?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Vijaydevani »

Nick_A wrote:
Does this in any way contradict the Corinthians quote? Without the light we remain in darkness. Some prefer to remain in the darkness of Plato's cave and others invite the light for the sake of truth. What is the problem?
The problem is in the identification of what is the light and what is the dark.

You might consider this. The search for a higher consciousness or truth or meaning and purpose are not new concepts. They have been around for centuries and have been taken to be true by the majority of the population at all times. Even today, theists constitute anywhere from 88% to 98% of the population. So what you consider as the light is actually popular belief held by almost everyone.

The other concept however, is something very few accept to be possibly true or even consider as a possibility. The non-existence of God or a meaning and purpose to life are concepts most people, including you, refuse to think about and reject it outright because it offends your senses. So you need to consider who really is in Plato's cave.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Burning ghost »

Nick_A -

Replace "bigotry" with opinion then refer back to The Republic and purpose of the Cave Analogy to show the differences between knowledge, opinion and belief.

I don't see how the quote from Corinthians has any direct bearing on Plato's Cave analogy other than by showing you are of the opinion that it is does.

Did the bible take certain hellenic traditions into its mythos? Most certaiy seems so.

If you wish to do hermeneutics that is your choice. If you wish to label it philosophy I will protest until you reveal your intent. If you wish to make a political statement so be it. If you wish to critic reason state what you mean by reason and state your critic.
AKA badgerjelly
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Nick_A:
Oak trees and acorns are not the same. The acorn is a seed of an oak. It is very rare for an acorn to become an oak. The great majority serve as food for the earth and the animals walking upon it. An acorn then is a potential oak

It is the same for man on earth. Man on earth has the potential to become a part of conscious humanity. This potential for man is very rare but is what defines man for me as truly human. Man on earth represents the myriad of possibilities for man’s devolution into mechanical animal life. Conscious humanity is far more united since by definition is not warped by imagination. The unifying factor is consciousness. As we are, chaotic imagination and acquired opinions with the imagined prestige that go along with them, rule the day.



As far as I can make out, Nick, you have given up on our conversation. You have not even tried to answer the vast majority of my questions and all you do each time is to try to find a phrase somewhere which inspires you to write nonsense. I am finding it rather embarrassing because I have to keep pointing out the nonsense.

I was somewhat less than inspired by your telling me that an acorn is a potential oak. I am sure that you believe it is somehow relevant to the futility of reason but, again, you have lost me. Because, as an analogy, it doesn’t work. ‘Man on earth’ – and Woman – does not have merely the potential to be part of humanity; by definition, he – and she – is part of humanity, conscious or otherwise. The ‘conscious’ bit is, again, something you have thrown in without explanation but that had become annoying a long time ago. Mind you, your concept of humanity might be up there, lost in the ether with your ‘not fully humans’ and ‘not truly humans’ that you have never explained, so I can never be sure.

As for, “devolution into mechanical animal life”, the mind boggles. I suggest you look up the word, ‘devolution’. I suspect it is not quite what you intended. And I really don’t know where to find these mechanical animals that you are talking about. Science laboratories? Robot conventions?

And “warped by imagination”. Is imagination a bad thing? What warps it? What does ‘warp’ mean in this context?

‘Consciousness’ is a great word to throw into a conversation if you are desperate, because, as everybody knows, it is so difficult to define and pin down.

I get so lost by your ‘non-standard’ use of English – that is the most polite way I can find of expressing it – that any ideas come across as white noise. I have come to believe that you don’t really have anything significant to say because, if you did, you would find a way of saying it that meant something.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Vijay wrote:
The other concept however, is something very few accept to be possibly true or even consider as a possibility. The non-existence of God or a meaning and purpose to life are concepts most people, including you, refuse to think about and reject it outright because it offends your senses. So you need to consider who really is in Plato's cave.
I reject it since it hard for me to logically accept that a functioning machine as intricate as our universe reacting to universal laws has no meaning or purpose. But maybe you are right. If so, why bother with philosophy defined as the love of wisdom? Philosophy defined as the love of wisdom doesn’t exist for a universe and Man without objective meaning and purpose. So why bother with philosophy? Grab a cold beer, sit in front of the tube, and play with the remote. Just deal with every day problems as they come along.

Burning ghost wrote:
I don't see how the quote from Corinthians has any direct bearing on Plato's Cave analogy other than by showing you are of the opinion that it is does.
Here are the passages in question:
1 Corinthians 2: 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Having made these claims, Socrates asks Glaucon, "...which of the gods in heaven can you put down as cause and master of this, whose light makes our sight see so beautifully and the things to be seen?" (508a) Glaucon responds that both he and all others would answer that this is the sun. Analogously, Socrates says, as the sun illuminates the visible with light so the idea of goodness illuminates the intelligible with truth, which in turn makes it possible for people to have knowledge. Also, as the eye's ability to see is made possible by the light of the sun so the soul's ability to know is made possible by the truth of goodness.
Is there really a difference between these passages? In each case the light is necessary to further awakening.
If you wish to do hermeneutics that is your choice. If you wish to label it philosophy I will protest until you reveal your intent. If you wish to make a political statement so be it. If you wish to critic reason state what you mean by reason and state your critic.
Why are you so caught up with intent? Why is it so difficult for you to contemplate ideas for the sake of ideas? Why have a pragmatic intent to manipulate ideas rather than respect their value? You may be content to live by manipulative intent as opposed to the love of wisdom but don’t include me with this attitude.

Iapetus wrote:
As far as I can make out, Nick, you have given up on our conversation. You have not even tried to answer the vast majority of my questions and all you do each time is to try to find a phrase somewhere which inspires you to write nonsense. I am finding it rather embarrassing because I have to keep pointing out the nonsense.
I have answered your questions. You just don’t like the answers. It’s like this question of what a human being is. I draw the analogy of the acorn and the oak. The acorn is a potential oak. The same is true with a tadpole being a potential frog and a caterpillar being a potential moth. The change of their being is a mechanical process. Man on earth as a creature of REACTION has the potential to become conscious Man with the ability for conscious ACTION. This change of being is consciuous rather than mechanical as it is with an acorn as a potential oak. You don’t like the answer but that doesn’t mean I haven’t answered your question.
As for, “devolution into mechanical animal life”, the mind boggles. I suggest you look up the word, ‘devolution’. I suspect it is not quite what you intended. And I really don’t know where to find these mechanical animals that you are talking about. Science laboratories? Robot conventions?

And “warped by imagination”. Is imagination a bad thing? What warps it? What does ‘warp’ mean in this context?

‘Consciousness’ is a great word to throw into a conversation if you are desperate, because, as everybody knows, it is so difficult to define and pin down.

I get so lost by your ‘non-standard’ use of English – that is the most polite way I can find of expressing it – that any ideas come across as white noise. I have come to believe that you don’t really have anything significant to say because, if you did, you would find a way of saying it that meant something.
Most recognize evolution as a process of the change of being moving from diversity into unity. What is so complicated about devolution as a process moving from unity into diversity?

Imagination takes the place of consciousness. They are mutually exclusive. When a person is captured by imagination they are incapable of consciousness and a conscious being has no need for imagination. Again, what is so surprising about that?

If people are always arguing about consciousness it is safe to say that they are not conscious beings. Again, what is so shocking about that. It is just common sense.The person who admits they lack consciousness are closer to potential human consciousness as opposed to our normal reactive animal consciousness

So the futility of reason lies in the fact that as we are, creatures of reaction and living by imagination, a true seeker of the wholeness of truth, wisdom, will need more than reason defending partial truths. Without that beginning a person just turns in circles.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Vijaydevani »

Nick_A wrote:Vijay wrote:
The other concept however, is something very few accept to be possibly true or even consider as a possibility. The non-existence of God or a meaning and purpose to life are concepts most people, including you, refuse to think about and reject it outright because it offends your senses. So you need to consider who really is in Plato's cave.
I reject it since it hard for me to logically accept that a functioning machine as intricate as our universe reacting to universal laws has no meaning or purpose. But maybe you are right. If so, why bother with philosophy defined as the love of wisdom? Philosophy defined as the love of wisdom doesn’t exist for a universe and Man without objective meaning and purpose. So why bother with philosophy? Grab a cold beer, sit in front of the tube, and play with the remote. Just deal with every day problems as they come along.
You just demonstrated that your concept of philosophy is very narrow. Without God and a meaning and purpose to life, your philosophy ends. These are your crutches. You need to understand that. Essentially your focus is on theology not philosophy.

However that was not the point I was trying to make. You have demonstrated exactly why you are in Plato's cave. You do not want to consider a possibility that you might not like. You reject the concept solely because you are afraid that you would have nothing left and have to do what you tell me to do. Grab a beer, sit in front of the tube and play with the remote. Just because you don't want to play with the remote, you reject the theory. This is purely psychological. You are afraid to even consider the option because you are afraid I might be right. You refuse to consider the possibility simply because it might cause you problems. That is no reason reject a theory. What kind of philosophy tells you to reject a theory because you might not like the answer?

And I don't understand why it is not possible for you to logically accept that the universe has no meaning and purpose when you can so easily accept that you have been given a purpose that you have not been made aware of. How is that logical to you? Why would a purpose be hidden if it is to be accomplished? Don't you see the mind boggling ridiculousness of this? Don't you see how insulting it is to the purpose giver? How could anyone be so mindless as to assign a purpose to someone and then try and make damn sure that they never ever get to accomplish it by not telling them what it is and insisting that they find out for themselves?
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Burning ghost »

Nick_A -

Just keep on doing what is you are doing then.

I would suggest looking at the analogies you are using and how well they fit your purpose. I do see that by using analogy we do attempt to move beyond cold logic to find a more personal understanding.

Good luck
AKA badgerjelly
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Nick_A:

I have answered your questions. You just don’t like the answers. It’s like this question of what a human being is. I draw the analogy of the acorn and the oak. The acorn is a potential oak. The same is true with a tadpole being a potential frog and a caterpillar being a potential moth. The change of their being is a mechanical process. Man on earth as a creature of REACTION has the potential to become conscious Man with the ability for conscious ACTION. This change of being is consciuous rather than mechanical as it is with an acorn as a potential oak. You don’t like the answer but that doesn’t mean I haven’t answered your question.


Because you have written something it does not mean that you have provided a reasoned response. You tell me; “I have answered your questions. You just don’t like the answers”. OK, then, as an example, let’s just examine my very last post, which was not particularly long.

I explained that your analogy about the acorn, which demonstrated potential to become a tree, did not work because humans are actual constituents of humanity.

Not a word of recognition of my criticism. Instead, you have tried to change the analogy to that of a tadpole and a caterpillar. No explanation, just other similar analogies. You did not respond to my point.

I wrote, “The ‘conscious’ bit is, again, something you have thrown in without explanation but that had become annoying a long time ago". Rather than attempt to explain your use of the word, you chose to reuse it in a slightly different context but, again, without explanation, further complicating any chance of understanding; “This change of being is consciuous rather than mechanical.” You did not respond to my point.

You wrote about “devolution into mechanical animal life”. I explained why this made no sense to me, starting with the unusual use of ‘devolution’ but particularly the ‘mechanical animal’ bit. You have not even acknowledged the issue, yet you continue now to use ‘mechanical’ in a new and similarly bizarre context. You did not respond to my point.

You wrote about, “warped by imagination”. I asked you several questions about this, but again, no answer. You did not respond to my point.

Rather than acknowledging my questions which seek clarification over your strange use of vocabulary, you ignore my pleas and reuse the same vocabulary. It does not follow that, because you have written something, it constitutes an answer to a question.

So it is not that I don’t like the answers. It is that, for a huge part of the time, you don’t even attempt to provide any. You are being disingenuous because, as you well know, you have not been able to provide the answers. I have reminded you of this on several occasions and your general strategy has been to ignore what I said. I can give you plenty more examples.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Vijay wrote:
You just demonstrated that your concept of philosophy is very narrow. Without God and a meaning and purpose to life, your philosophy ends. These are your crutches. You need to understand that. Essentially your focus is on theology not philosophy.
I don’t know if it is a crutch. It is true that I define traditional philosophy as the love of wisdom and I cannot understand how objective wisdom is possible without a conscious source. However I appreciate political philosophy as the attempt to understand human mechanics in governing social structure. For example I am very interested in how Simone Weil explained the relationship between obligations and rights. It is necessary to sustain a healthy functioning free society. It is increasing being forgotten in America in favor of an obsession with rights. This means America as initially intended is doomed. I don’t see a way around it since the dynamics of political philosophy won’t allow it.
"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”
However that was not the point I was trying to make. You have demonstrated exactly why you are in Plato's cave. You do not want to consider a possibility that you might not like. You reject the concept solely because you are afraid that you would have nothing left and have to do what you tell me to do. Grab a beer, sit in front of the tube and play with the remote. Just because you don't want to play with the remote, you reject the theory. This is purely psychological. You are afraid to even consider the option because you are afraid I might be right. You refuse to consider the possibility simply because it might cause you problems. That is no reason reject a theory. What kind of philosophy tells you to reject a theory because you might not like the answer?
OK, the universe and humanity including me has no objective human meaning and purpose. What does your power of reason suggest I gain by this knowledge? I am related to an Armenian archbishop and an artist who has had few peers in the depiction of awe and wonder. I feel certain things by heredity. Why suppress these intuitive feelings for the sake of denying universal purpose and meaning because binary logic is incapable of explaining it?
And I don't understand why it is not possible for you to logically accept that the universe has no meaning and purpose when you can so easily accept that you have been given a purpose that you have not been made aware of. How is that logical to you? Why would a purpose be hidden if it is to be accomplished? Don't you see the mind boggling ridiculousness of this? Don't you see how insulting it is to the purpose giver? How could anyone be so mindless as to assign a purpose to someone and then try and make damn sure that they never ever get to accomplish it by not telling them what it is and insisting that they find out for themselves?
It is logical in relation to the human condition. A person is dual natured. We have a higher part with the potential for consciousness and a lower animal part. The lower part is serving its purpose well as does all animal life. It transforms substances by our bodily processes. It is what we do. Organic life on earth of which animal Man is a part is a marvelous machine that sustains itself by feeding on itself and reproducing. That is our animal purpose. We have a potential conscious purpose that is passive because the concerns of the lower part have become so dominant. The universe isn’t here to serve you. Rather you serve a universal animal purpose with the potential for a conscious purpose. Conscious purpose is known. Is it really asking so much for a person to remember it rather than demanding some sort of personal God whisper it in your ear.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
I believe pure intuition is an objective experience so is infallible … I’m just providing a modern psychological explanation for it.
Did you read the link you provided? It says nothing about intuition being infallible. It discusses decisions about ordinary life. It says nothing about intuitions of other levels of reality. In other words, there is nothing in the article to support your claims.
Don’t forget that the purpose of the dialogues is to further remembrance as opposed to parroting
Misguided nonsense. Where did you get the idea that this is the purpose of the dialogues? Certainly not from the dialogues. Do you not understand the difference between explication and parroting? When you repeat things without understanding them you are parroting. When I explain themes that run through several different dialogues I am explaining.
Who says he did.
I was quoting the link you provided. You either did not read or did not understand what it said.
Now you sound like me.
Please do not insult me.

I said nothing about “ones nothingness". If you had understood what I said you would understand that the point was to deny what you are calling “objective knowledge”, that is, knowledge of the Forms. Is this something you would say? If so then you would have to recant large sections of what you have said.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021