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
Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Daviddunn »

@Fooloso4

Reply to post #32
Fooloso4 wrote:I would be glad to discuss it with you, only I will not sit through an hour plus video as a precondition of that discussion. Give us a short summary.
Of course.

The Creator, The Almighty has already provided the summary in the Holy Quran, so I will be quoting a translation of His Words directly.

Recapitulating my previous post to you, I had asked you in post # 28, the following:
To consider the arguments which Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) has with (1) his father, (2) his people, (3) people to whom he is sent to preach pure monotheism and (4) the argument which he (pbuh) has with king Nimrod.

1. Argument which Prophet Abraham (pbuh) has with his father:

Allah, The All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran:
  • And mention in the Book Abraham. Indeed, he was a man of truth, a Prophet.
    When he said to his father, "O my father! Why do you worship that which does not hear and does not see and does not benefit you in anything?
    O my father! Indeed, there has come to me of knowledge that which has not come to you, so follow me; I will guide you to an even path.
    O my father! Do not worship Shaitaan. Indeed, Shaitaan is disobedient to the Most Gracious.
    O my father! Indeed, I fear that a punishment will touch you from the Most Gracious, so you would be a friend to Shaitaan."
    He (his father) said, "Do you hate my gods, O Abraham? If you do not desist, I will surely stone you, so leave me for a prolonged time." [Holy Quran 19:41-46]
2. The argument which Prophet Abraham (pbuh) has with his people.

(i) Argument 1:

Allah, The All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran:
  • And recite to them the news of Abraham,
    When he said to his father and his people, "What do you worship?"
    They said, "We worship idols, and we will remain devoted to them."
    He said, "Do they hear you when you call?"
    They say, "Nay, but we found our forefathers doing so."
    He said, "Do you see what you have been worshipping,
    You and your forefathers.
    Indeed, they are enemies to me, except the Lord of the worlds,
    The One Who created me, and it is He Who guides me.
    And the One Who gives me food and drink.
    And when I am ill, He cures me,
    And the One Who will cause me to die, then give me life,
    And the One Who, I hope, will forgive me for my faults on the Day of Judgement." [Quran 26: 69-82]
(ii) Argument 2: Destruction of Idols

Allah, The All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran:
  • And indeed, among his kind was Abraham,
    When he came to his Lord with a sound heart,
    When he said to his people, "What do you worship?
    Is it falsehood-gods other than Allah-that you desire?
    Then What do you think about the Lord of the worlds?"
    Then he cast a glance at the stars,
    And he said, "Indeed, I am sick."
    So they turned away from him, departing. [Quran 37: 83-90]
At that point, the people of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) left the city, and went in the desert to worship idols. It was a festival for them. And God, The Almighty continues to narrate the story in the Holy Quran thus,
  • Then he(Abraham) turned to their gods and said, "Do you not eat?
    What is (the matter) with you that you do not speak?"
    Then he turned upon them, striking with his right hand. [Holy Quran 37:91-93]
At some point, the people came back from the festival, and found that their idols were destroyed, except for one big idol in which Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had put an axe in its hands.

Allah says in the Holy Quran:
  • So he made them into pieces except a large one of them, so that they may return to it. [Holy Quran 21:58]

And when the people came back, they brought Prophet Abraham(pbuh) to question him:
  • They said, "Who has done this to our gods? Indeed, he is of the wrongdoers?"
    They said, "We heard a youth mention them who is called Abraham."
    They said, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, so that they may bear witness."
    They said, "Have you done this to our gods, O Abraham?"
    He said, "Nay, (some doer) did it. This is their chief. So ask them if they can speak."
    So they returned to themselves and said (to each other), "Indeed, you are the wrongdoers."
    Then they reversed (saying), "Verily, you know these cannot speak!"
    He said, "Then do you worship besides Allah that which does not benefit you at all nor harms you?
    Uff to you and to what you worship besides Allah. Then will you not use reason?"
    They said, ”Burn him and support your gods, if you are to act.” [Quran 21:59-68]
3. Argument with people to whom Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was sent.

Prophet Abraham (pbuh) passed by Harran: nowadays corresponding to the regions of Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. And he (pbuh) stopped there and started to call these people who were star worshipers to the religion of the pure monotheism of Islam. Consider, the approach of Prophet Abraham (pbuh),i.e. how he proceeded to bring the people of Harran to reason and use their intellect, and little by little trying to bring them to strict and pure monotheism.

To prove his point, that stars could not be worshiped, he proceeded by reasoning with them.

Allah, the All-Knowing narrates the story thus;
  • So when the night covered him, he saw a star. He said, “This is my Lord.” But when it set, he said, “I do not like the ones that set.”
    When he saw the moon rising, he said, “This is my Lord.” But when it set, he said, “If my Lord does not guide me, I will surely be among the people who went astray.”
    When he saw the sun rising, he said, “This is my Lord; this is greater.” But when it set, he said, “O my people! Indeed, I am free of what you associate (with Allah).”
    Indeed, I have turned my face to the One Who created the heavens and the earth as a true monotheist, and I am not of those who associate partners with Allah.[Holy Quran 6:76-79]
And when, the people realized that he was not one of them, but were merely trying to show them the absurdity in worshiping stars, then the people started to argue with him (pbuh).

Allah, The All-Knowing narrates:
  • And his people argued with him. He said, “Do you argue with me concerning Allah while He has guided me? And I do not fear what you associate with Him, unless my Lord wills something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge; then will you not take heed?
    And how could I fear what you associate while you do not fear that you have associated with Allah that for which He did not send down to you any authority. So which of the two parties has more right to security, if you know.” [Holy Quran 6:80-81]
Isn’t that a powerful argument?

Then Allah, The All-Wise says something that needs one to ponder;
  • Those who believe and do not mix their belief with wrong, those will have security, and they are rightly guided. [Holy Quran 6:82]
And lastly concerning this argument, Allah, the All-Knowing says:
  • And this is Our argument which We gave Abraham against his people. We raise by degrees whom We will. Indeed, your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.[Holy Quran 6:83]
Intellect, wisdom and knowledge is from Allah, The All-knowing.

Allah, The All-Wise says,
  • He grants wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever is granted wisdom, then certainly he has been granted abundant good. And none remembers it except those of understanding. [Holy Quran 2:269]
4. Argument with king Nimrod

Nimrod was a tyrant king, who considered himself to be god, in the times of Prophet Abraham(pbuh). When he heard the story of how, God, The Almighty had saved Prophet Abraham(pbuh) from the fire, he ordered his guards to bring Prophet Abraham to him, and then he argued with him.

Allah, the All-Knowing says in the Quran:
  • Are you not aware of the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord because Allah had given him the Kingdom? When Abraham said, “My Lord is the One Who-grants life and causes death.” He said, “I too give life and cause death.”[Holy Quran 2:258]
When Nimrod said that he too gives life and causes death, some historians say that he brought in two prisoners who were about to be executed, and he pardoned one and ordered the other to be killed on the spot. Prophet Abraham (pbuh), then responded to him as the verse continues:
  • Abraham said, “Indeed, Allah brings up the sun from the east, so you bring it up from the west.” So the disbeliever became dumbfounded, and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. [Holy Quran 2:258]
___________________________

When one ponders on the story of Prophet Abraham(pbuh), one observes that he produced powerful arguments to his people, and most times the response was aggressive and futile argumentation. The cognitive dissonance and confusion of the people is a recurring happening. Please, if anything is not clear, you can ask for some precision.
____________________________
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Fooloso4 wrote:
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.
The purpose of posting the link was to prove that even modern psychology accepts tht intuition coes take place. Of course we cannot know its limitations. It may be limited to kim Kardashian but regardless, intuition does seem to be a reality
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.
This reads like something my ex wife would say. She knew all thing and could explain any thing.

Without anamnesis the dialogues lose their significance and purpose to open the mind including for the potential of human existence beyond one lifetime in whatever form it may take.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anamnesis
The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.
Plato argues for the theory of recollection in two dialogues—the Meno, and the Phaedo—and mentions it in one other—the Phaedrus. His basic strategy of argument is that human beings know certain things, or possess certain concepts, which could not have been gotten from sense experience. Plato’s explanation is that the human soul knew these things before it was born, so that learning these things is really just a matter of remembering them.
It is important to see that anamnesis is not meant to explain all learning. The Greek word translated “learning,” manthanein, (from which the English ‘mathematics’ is derived) does not pertain to information acquired through the senses, or knowledge of skills. So, for example, ananmnesis is not meant to explain the acquisition of skills such as being able to play the guitar, or with simple factual information such as the dates of the battle of Marathon. The claim that learning is anamnesis appears to be restricted to a priori knowledge, that is knowledge which does not depend on experience for its justification.
If true it further explains the futility of reason. The bottom line is that the purpose of the dialogues is to open the mind to understanding rather than for you to explain them.
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 »

Daviddunn,

I do not see arguments in what you have provided; I see assertions and professions of belief. They are not assertions that I agree with and not beliefs that I hold.

I find the story in Genesis of Abrams willingness to sacrifice his son deeply disturbing. That this stands as the model of faith is problematic. The problem is not that God would ask this of him but that others, as a matter of faith, may do horrible things believing it to be God’s will.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Vijaydevani »

Nick_A wrote: 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.
I don't see what political philosophy has to do with what we are discussing. You do not define traditional philosophy as love of wisdom. You define it as a search for God and meaning and purpose. The fact that you cannot understand how wisdom (I don't know why you used the term objective) is possible without a conscious source is because you refuse to even consider it. The reality is that there are lot of people who have a love for wisdom who do not believe in God or a meaning and purpose to life. If they can manage, it must be possible. But you will never consider it. It is a crutch you need to let go.

Nick_A wrote: 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?
It just helps you get rid of your ego which demands that since you exist it must be for a meaning and purpose. It puts to rest the inflated sense of having a mind capable of being God like. It shows that you are human, and just like any other species on earth. No more important and no less important. And with that you start looking at the world with a new perspective. It throws away the illusion of special connection with God.

And again, binary logic might be incapable of explaining it but binary logic raises some glaring contradictions which, if you are honest, you must address. How do you explain God giving you a purpose but not disclosing it to you? You keep ignoring it but such an intelligent being, if he made you for a purpose, would he actually not tell you about it? How does he expect the job to get done? It the most basic thing even the most foolish people understand. That to get a job done you have to define it. Yet, you are ready to believe that God failed to do that. Forget about what logic cannot explain. But you have to address these contradiction issues if you claim a love for wisdom. Just to have a meaning and purpose you are prepared to categorize God as foolish or you will hide behind God works in mysterious ways. How often do you plan to hide behind that?

Nick_A wrote:
vijaydevani wrote: 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.
Nope. This is not question raised from the perspective of a human. It is a question raised from the perspective of God. So whatever human might be, it is God who wants a job done and to get the job done, he cannot seriously expect humans to, as you say, remember it. They don't. This is the one question that has bothered all god believers all their lives. What is our purpose? It is obvious no one "remembers". So it is not the human's job to "remember" his purpose. For God's perspective, it is his work not getting done. Such an intelligent being would not hide behind emotional blackmail and sulk and say, "why did you forget what I wanted you to do? Now I won't tell you. So there." You might believe that a human needs to remember what his purpose it. But from God's perspective, it would be foolish of him to expect humans to remember. He would ensure that it would be completely clear to you. And you cannot escape this by putting the burden on the human to "remember". What if he doesn't? Whose job doesn't get done?
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
The purpose of posting the link was to prove that even modern psychology accepts tht intuition coes take place. Of course we cannot know its limitations. It may be limited to kim Kardashian but regardless, intuition does seem to be a reality.
Are you aware of your equivocations? I am not denying intuition, I am denying what you claim about intuition, namely, that it is an infallible guide to “higher levels of reality”.
Without anamnesis the dialogues lose their significance and purpose to open the mind including for the potential of human existence beyond one lifetime in whatever form it may take.
Where in the linked article does it say this? There are three problem that neither you nor the article address: 1. Although the article does point out that the myth of anamnesis appears in only a few of the dialogues, it says nothing about the significance of its absence in the other dialogues, most importantly, the Republic. If it is central to Plato’s teaching then why is there no discussion of it in the dialogue that deals most directly with knowledge? 2. The article mentions the Phaedo but does not address the problem of the fate of the soul, which is the central topic of the dialogue. A superficial reading of the dialogue seems to support the idea of an individual immortal soul, but each of the accounts given eventually falls apart and cannot be maintained. The fate of the soul is left undetermined because no coherent account of what the soul is can be given. The myth of recollection is dependent on the existence of an immoral soul, and so, if the existence of an immoral soul is called into question then the myth of recollection is as well. If there is no immortal soul then there can be no recollection. 3. Why does Socrates insist that his wisdom is knowledge of ignorance if there is recollection?
The bottom line is that the purpose of the dialogues is to open the mind to understanding rather than for you to explain them.
Whatever the purpose of the dialogues is that cannot be determined or accomplished if one does not first understand them. You don’t. In order to help you understand I have tried to explain them to you well enough that you give up some of your misguided ideas about them. It has become increasingly obvious that my efforts are futile. It is clear that you do not want to understand the texts but rather want them to mean what you want them to mean. This is in direct opposition to what you now claim the purpose of them to be and apparently you have already forgotten what you previously claimed their purpose was.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Vijay wrote:
I don't see what political philosophy has to do with what we are discussing. You do not define traditional philosophy as love of wisdom. You define it as a search for God and meaning and purpose. The fact that you cannot understand how wisdom (I don't know why you used the term objective) is possible without a conscious source is because you refuse to even consider it. The reality is that there are lot of people who have a love for wisdom who do not believe in God or a meaning and purpose to life. If they can manage, it must be possible. But you will never consider it. It is a crutch you need to let go.
I introduced political philosophy to stress the fact that they are both meaningful but have a different purpose so is best not to confuse them.

I’ve often said that I perceive the Source (God) as outside the confines of time and space. How could I be searching for what cannot be conceived? Objective wisdom is the same to me as the dharma in the East. It is recognition of the interactions of essential universal laws that are actualized through karma, A person with objective wisdom is guided and motivated by knowledge of these laws both for this life and later lives. Ambitious secular people lacking wisdom act by the principle “the ends justify the means.” People with objective wisdom act by the principle “the means justify the ends.” That is why ambitious secular people cannot understand those with objective wisdom. You don’t need to believe in a personal god to have wisdom. A person just needs to be open to consciously experience the objective interactions of universal laws.
It just helps you get rid of your ego which demands that since you exist it must be for a meaning and purpose. It puts to rest the inflated sense of having a mind capable of being God like. It shows that you are human, and just like any other species on earth. No more important and no less important. And with that you start looking at the world with a new perspective. It throws away the illusion of special connection with God.
Now you’ve touched on a deep religious philosophy: what does it mean to be a son of God? It isn’t something binary logic can prove yet a person through contemplation can sense the potential. Suppose as Buddhism suggests we exist as the five aggregates?

http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoo ... each11.htm
The teaching of The Five Aggregates or The Five Skandhas, is an analysis of personal experiences and a view on cognition from a Buddhist perspective.

The teaching also provides a logical and thorough approach to understand the Universal Truth of Not-self. In the last issue's "Buddhism in a Nutshell", we conclude that self is just a convenient term for a collection of physical and mental personal experiences, such as feelings, ideas, thoughts, habits, attitude, etc. However, we should go on to analyse all our personal experiences in terms of The Five Aggregates………………..
If this is true we cannot be a son of God since we are a lot of nothing. However in Christianity the Trinity has three essential aspects which can be described in many ways but are essentially positive, negative, and neutral. You can say affirmation, denial, and reconciling, yin, yang, and qi, but it is all the same. They exist as unity in the trinity. To be a son of God, a being must have inner unity. Man has will, (positive) body, (negative) and heart. (reconciling). But in us they exist as aggregates. We are not ONE. We have no I am. Can a person acquire conscious inner unity so as to be a reflection of the trinity on a lower level? That is a deep question for religious philosophy.
And again, binary logic might be incapable of explaining it but binary logic raises some glaring contradictions which, if you are honest, you must address. How do you explain God giving you a purpose but not disclosing it to you?
I agree and that is why Simone Weil wrote that atheism can serve as a purification of religion.

I keep telling you the answer but you don’t want to accept it. Our purpose on earth is the same as the rest of organic life. Our purpose is to transform substances. There is no personal God to tell you or a dog when to eat. We are invited by higher consciousness to continue on from mechanical evolution into conscious evolution. Then a person can begin to serve a conscious as well as an animal purpose. As we are, we are serving our animal purpose
Nope. This is not question raised from the perspective of a human. It is a question raised from the perspective of God. So whatever human might be, it is God who wants a job done and to get the job done, he cannot seriously expect humans to, as you say, remember it.
You seem to be in battle with the concept of a personal God. I can understand that. But I don’t believe in a personal God. I believe that creation must have a source to sustain its existence. However qualities of consciousness manifesting at levels of reality within the universe working in conjunction with universal laws sustain our functioning universe. You are arguing with the wrong person.

-- Updated Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:52 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:
Whatever the purpose of the dialogues is that cannot be determined or accomplished if one does not first understand them. You don’t. In order to help you understand I have tried to explain them to you well enough that you give up some of your misguided ideas about them. It has become increasingly obvious that my efforts are futile. It is clear that you do not want to understand the texts but rather want them to mean what you want them to mean. This is in direct opposition to what you now claim the purpose of them to be and apparently you have already forgotten what you previously claimed their purpose was.
You don’t seem open to the idea that the dialogues are written for different qualities of understanding. You appreciate the secular value but not the connection between higher understanding and how it can be introduced into secular society by those who have acquired understanding. The following excerpts make sense to me. You may disagree but that’s OK

"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
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Thus, after criticising the conventional ideas of justice presented differently by Cephalus, Polymarchus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, Plato now gives us his own theory of justice. Plato strikes an analogy between the human organism on the one hand and social organism on the other. Human organism according to Plato contains three elements-Reason, Spirit and Appetite. An individual is just when each part of his or her soul performs its functions without interfering with those of other elements. For example, the reason should rule on behalf of the entire soul with wisdom and forethought. The element of spirit will sub-ordinate itself to the rule of reason. Those two elements are brought into harmony by combination of mental and bodily training. They are set in command over the appetites which form the greater part of man's soul. Therefore, the reason and spirit have to control these appetites which are likely to grow on the bodily pleasures. These appetites should not be allowed, to enslave the other elements and usurp the dominion to which they have no right. When all the three agree that among them the reason alone should rule, there is justice within the individual.

Corresponding to these three elements in human nature there are three classes in the social organism-Philosopher class or the ruling class which is the representative of reason; auxiliaries, a class of warriors and defenders of the country is the representative of spirit; and the appetite instinct of the community which consists of farmers, artisans and are the lowest rung of the ladder. Thus, weaving a web between the human organism and the social organism, Plato asserts that functional specialization demands from every social class to specialize itself in the station of life allotted to it. Justice, therefore to Plato is like a manuscript which exists in two copies, and one of these is larger than the other. It exists both in the individual and the society. But it exists on a larger scale and in more visible form in the society. Individually "justice is a 'human virtue' that makes a man self consistent and good: Socially, justice is a social consciousness that makes a society internally harmonious and good."……………………….
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:
I’ve often said that I perceive the Source (God) as outside the confines of time and space.
And you have never clarified how you or any other human with their limited mental abilities which are confined by time and space can see that. Along with a belief in God are we now supposed to believe in the ability of the human mind to be transcendental too?


Nick_A wrote: Now you’ve touched on a deep religious philosophy: what does it mean to be a son of God? It isn’t something binary logic can prove yet a person through contemplation can sense the potential. Suppose as Buddhism suggests we exist as the five aggregates?
If we exist as the five aggregates than Jesus would have been a buddhist and the bible would be full of buddhist teachings. If you read the bible and buddhism, you will see that they follow completely different paths. So how did that happen?
Nick_A wrote: http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoo ... each11.htm

The teaching of The Five Aggregates or The Five Skandhas, is an analysis of personal experiences and a view on cognition from a Buddhist perspective.
I am amazed at your ability to misinterpret things so that they somehow say exactly what you want. How on earth you found any connection between the Five aggregates and God is completely beyond me. This is all about knowing the self. The self meaning you yourself. Not God. Not some "higher consciousness". It is NOT about the ability to find God. Let us be very clear about one thing. The Buddha never EVER suggested or said anything about God ever. If someone asked him God existed, he said yes. If someone asked him if God didn't exist, he said, "no, God does not exist." That is why I was wondering how you found any reference to God in Buddhism. Now I know. You just interpreted it to mean what you want it to. Though how you did it is completely beyond me.
Nick_A wrote: If this is true we cannot be a son of God since we are a lot of nothing. However in Christianity the Trinity has three essential aspects which can be described in many ways but are essentially positive, negative, and neutral. You can say affirmation, denial, and reconciling, yin, yang, and qi, but it is all the same. They exist as unity in the trinity. To be a son of God, a being must have inner unity. Man has will, (positive) body, (negative) and heart. (reconciling). But in us they exist as aggregates. We are not ONE. We have no I am. Can a person acquire conscious inner unity so as to be a reflection of the trinity on a lower level? That is a deep question for religious philosophy.
Sorry, but these are not philosophical questions. These are religious questions (that too very very euphemistically speaking) which are based on assumptions which have not ever been close to being verified. Any discussion where things that have not been proven have to be taken on faith cannot be considered philosophical from any angle. You might call it philosophy if it makes you feel better but it is not philosophy. At all. In any form.

Nick_A wrote: I agree and that is why Simone Weil wrote that atheism can serve as a purification of religion.
First of all, Simone Weil is not any kind of authority. Also she is not here to defend what you say she said. So you really should stop quoting her since most of what she says is utterly and very annoyingly ridiculous. You might be her fan, but I certainly am not and am not willing to waste my time commenting on anything she says because it is usually all utter rubbish.
Nick_A wrote: I keep telling you the answer but you don’t want to accept it. Our purpose on earth is the same as the rest of organic life. Our purpose is to transform substances. There is no personal God to tell you or a dog when to eat. We are invited by higher consciousness to continue on from mechanical evolution into conscious evolution. Then a person can begin to serve a conscious as well as an animal purpose. As we are, we are serving our animal purpose.
Oh please. Your telling me our purpose on earth is not going to work. You are no authority of any kind whatsoever. It is God who sent you for a purpose. Has he made it clear to you? Is it your claim that God said this to you? Why doesn't it say so in the Bible? If God found the time and inclination to tell us what not to do, surely he could have found the time to tell us what to do FIRST? Where is it in the Bible? Or any other religious book?
Nick_A wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You seem to be in battle with the concept of a personal God. I can understand that. But I don’t believe in a personal God. I believe that creation must have a source to sustain its existence. However qualities of consciousness manifesting at levels of reality within the universe working in conjunction with universal laws sustain our functioning universe. You are arguing with the wrong person.

Nope. It is you who claims a personal God. An impersonal God would be impersonal. He would definitely not put you on earth for a purpose because that would mean he had a vested interest in your existence. If God is impersonal, then there is no question of your life having any meaning or purpose at all other than whatever you choose to give it. And every meaning or purpose you gave it would be right and you would have no right to be judgmental about other people who either gave it a different meaning or chose to believe there is no meaning or purpose at all. The very fact that you believe in an kind of conscious agent having given your life a purpose means that you believe a conscious agent which wants a job done. Which means you believe the conscious agent has a vested interest in you. Which means you believe in a personal God.
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 -

You made a valiant attempt. I really don't think you can ignore the stigma attached to the term "god" when people cannot see past it.

It is not a case of being a "slave to bigotry" it is a case of understanding that some people are going to be forever stuck on the idea of an existing deity and always return to that point.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
You don’t seem open to the idea that the dialogues are written for different qualities of understanding.
If you are referring to “qualities of understanding” in relationship to “higher levels of reality” then you are right. The reason is simple: the texts do not support such a reading. I have tried to show you that but you see only what you want to see. So, it is not a matter of me being open to the text but of you being closed and blinded by the assumptions you bring to it.
The following excerpts make sense to me.
The question is not whether the excepts make sense but rather whether you have made proper sense of them. The first passage is about memory not recollection. If he were around today Plato would add cut and paste to writing. Your memory seems weak since you have forgotten that you posted the second passage previously and we discussed it. I would suggest that someone read the Phaedrus as a whole rather than an except, the dialogue itself explains why. But you do exactly what the passage you quote warns against, the conceit of wisdom that comes from being told many things.

The dialogue discusses the problem of addressing everyone with the same words and not being able to ask the text questions to correct misunderstandings. So, I am not only open to the possibility that the dialogues address different readers differently; I take it as a principle of interpretation. The difference is that while you assume Plato “introduces higher understanding” I take my bearings from the texts themselves and see that what you call an introduction is what he refers to in the Republic as noble lies and images. You make the mistake of believing that these lies and images are the truth. And of course, that is exactly what Plato intends for readers not yet ready or not capable of philosophizing.
User avatar
Mugglegum
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 12th, 2016, 2:20 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Mugglegum »

The Futility of Reason is shown here, the previous arguments based upon who said what in the past. Plato and his contempories would change their reasoning when fronted with present knowledge.

Should we not put forward proposals based upon present day knowledge and our deep thinking, and accept others views in the hope of coming to a loose agreement.

Regarding Evolution and God, I agree to both, we have evolved from what an Intelligence created. I do not see Intelligence as a man in flowing garments with a beard. I see intelligence as a Natural Phenonimal, it is all around us at times it finely tunes evolution. The Spirit of Life, is in all living life forms, continuously evolving, to serve a greater purpose.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Vijay wrote: Nick_A wrote:
I’ve often said that I perceive the Source (God) as outside the confines of time and space.

And you have never clarified how you or any other human with their limited mental abilities which are confined by time and space can see that. Along with a belief in God are we now supposed to believe in the ability of the human mind to be transcendental too?
Yes. Where binary logic that interprets the senses cannot comprehend the transcendent, higher mind can.
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm

The world of Forms
1. The world of being; everything in this world “always is,” “has no becoming,” and “does not change”(28a).
2. It is apprehended by the understanding, not by the senses.
The Source doesn’t participate in the process of existence. God IS. Existence takes place within isness. Understanding requires more than reason. Tht is why reason is futile to acquire human understanding of objective meaning and purpose.
If we exist as the five aggregates than Jesus would have been a buddhist and the bible would be full of buddhist teachings. If you read the bible and buddhism, you will see that they follow completely different paths. So how did that happen
?

When a teaching initiated by a conscious source enters into the world it does so in a manner that the temperament of cultures can comprehend. The western mind is more head oriented than the Eastern mind so requires a different approach.
I am amazed at your ability to misinterpret things so that they somehow say exactly what you want. How on earth you found any connection between the Five aggregates and God is completely beyond me. This is all about knowing the self. The self meaning you yourself. Not God. Not some "higher consciousness". It is NOT about the ability to find God. Let us be very clear about one thing. The Buddha never EVER suggested or said anything about God ever. If someone asked him God existed, he said yes. If someone asked him if God didn't exist, he said, "no, God does not exist." That is why I was wondering how you found any reference to God in Buddhism. Now I know. You just interpreted it to mean what you want it to. Though how you did it is completely beyond me.

The internet has proven Buddha right. He stressed that concern for God and glorified reasoning would lead to more trouble than it is worth. So like Socrates and the great Christian mystics he taught the importance of first efforts to “Know thyself.”
Sorry, but these are not philosophical questions. These are religious questions (that too very very euphemistically speaking) which are based on assumptions which have not ever been close to being verified. Any discussion where things that have not been proven have to be taken on faith cannot be considered philosophical from any angle. You might call it philosophy if it makes you feel better but it is not philosophy. At all. In any form.
Does that mean the ONE taught by plotinus should be stricken from philosophy since it cannot be proven by binary logic? You might think he sounds like Simone so should be banished from philosophical thought.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/#SSH2a.i
The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding…………………………………….
Oh please. Your telling me our purpose on earth is not going to work. You are no authority of any kind whatsoever. It is God who sent you for a purpose. Has he made it clear to you? Is it your claim that God said this to you? Why doesn't it say so in the Bible? If God found the time and inclination to tell us what not to do, surely he could have found the time to tell us what to do FIRST? Where is it in the Bible? Or any other religious book?
The purpose of a car, a bus, a plane, or a train is to move a person from one place to another. The purpose of a dog, a cat, a horse, or animal man on earth is to transform substances. The purpose is evident. It is what these things do. What’s the problem?
Nope. It is you who claims a personal God. An impersonal God would be impersonal. He would definitely not put you on earth for a purpose because that would mean he had a vested interest in your existence. If God is impersonal, then there is no question of your life having any meaning or purpose at all other than whatever you choose to give it. And every meaning or purpose you gave it would be right and you would have no right to be judgmental about other people who either gave it a different meaning or chose to believe there is no meaning or purpose at all. The very fact that you believe in an kind of conscious agent having given your life a purpose means that you believe a conscious agent which wants a job done. Which means you believe the conscious agent has a vested interest in you. Which means you believe in a personal God.
No. Man’s animal meaning is the same as the rest of organic life on earth. Man’s conscious potential is to serve universal needs. Where the Source created the grand scale of the universe, the demiurge deals with the details. Consequently Man on earth was not an effort by God but rather a cosmic necessity dealt with by the demiurge or lesser qualities of consciousness within creation. And yes, higher consciousness aids lower consciousness in its conscious evolution.

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm
The Demiurge (Creator)
Literally, “craftsman.” The creator of Plato’s physical world is not a divine intelligence or a personal ruler, but (as it were) a manual laborer. Cf. Vlastos, Plato’s Universe (pp. 26-27):
That the supreme god of Plato’s cosmos should wear the mask of a manual worker is a triumph of the philosophical imagination over ingrained social prejudice. ... But this divine mechanic is not a drudge. He is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would have to be in Plato’s conception of art: not the inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless material.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/
According to Plotinus, the Demiurge does not actually create anything; what he does is govern the purely passive nature of matter, which is pure passivity itself, by imposing a sensible form (an image of the intelligible forms contained as thoughts within the mind of the Demiurge) upon it. The form (eidos) which is the arkhe or generative or productive principle of all beings, establishes its presence in the physical or sensible realm not through any act, but by virtue of the expressive contemplation of the Demiurge, who is to be identified with the Intelligence or Mind (Nous) in Plotinus' system. Yet this Intelligence cannot be referred to as the primordial source of all existents (although it does hold the place, in Plotinus' cosmology, of first principle), for it, itself, subsists only insofar as it contemplates a prior -- this supreme prior is, according to Plotinus, the One, which is neither being nor essence, but the source, or rather, the possibility of all existence (seeEnnead V.2.1). In this capacity, the One is not even a beginning, nor even an end, for it is simply the disinterested orientational 'stanchion' that permits all beings to recognize themselves as somehow other than a supreme 'I'. Indeed, for Plotinus, the Soul is the 'We' (Ennead I.1.7), that is, the separated yet communicable likeness (homoiotai) of existents to the Mind or Intelligence that contemplates the One. This highest level of contemplation -- the Intelligence contemplating the One -- gives birth to the forms (eide), which serve as the referential, contemplative basis of all further existents. The simultaneous inexhaustibility of the One as a generative power, coupled with its elusive and disinterested transcendence, makes the positing of any determinate source or point of origin of existence, in the context of Plotinus' thought, impossible. So the transgression of metaphysical thought, in Plotinus' system, owes its achievement to his grand concept of the One.
In short, get it through your head that I don’t believe in the great source of our universe and your personal god that will tell you to fly a plane into a building. If you want to believe that, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I can sell you at a cheap price.

-- Updated Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:29 pm to add the following --

Burning ghost wrote:
You made a valiant attempt. I really don't think you can ignore the stigma attached to the term "god" when people cannot see past it.

It is not a case of being a "slave to bigotry" it is a case of understanding that some people are going to be forever stuck on the idea of an existing deity and always return to that point.
Call it what you will but the conceit of these blind deniers affects the young in institutions of child abuse called schools. When God becomes a dirty word it can only be replaced by reason. Consider the results. Sometimes ignorance is dangerous. Read this discussion between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker. The futility of reason was known by Socrates, Plato, Jesus, Buddha and many others. That is why Plato used myths and Jesus used Parables. The idea is that a person has to bypass their celebrated reason in order to open to understanding. Jacob Needleman explains the kamatic lie in Buddhism.

http://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=1
JN: The Buddha goes to help people who are suffering in hell, and in order to communicate to those who are living in hell, he has to speak in the form of a lie. He speaks the truth in the form of a lie because they would never understand the truth as it is. A famous example of that is called "the lie of kama" which is love—"The Kamatic lie" which is how you communicate the truth. People are asleep. People are deluded. If you tell them really straight out what the situation is... He likens it to a house being on fire where there are children in the house on the second or third floor. You've got to get them out but they don't know the house is burning. You might try to scare them, you could try to plead with them, but they might not listen to you. You have to say something that will really make them listen. You tell them there are toys in the street. Jump! They would be afraid to jump, that you might not catch them. There are many toys down here! And so they jump and you catch them. They see then that there are no toys, but their lives have been saved. So you have to communicate knowing the levers that you have to press. Skillful means could be called, aesthetic communication. That could be part of the roots of this whole big
question. Do you know Kierkegaard's thought at all?...................................
Scrolling down in the discussion Jacob Needleman describes his experience with metaphysical repression:
Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.
I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.
My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art.
This idea that only that which can be verified by reason has any value is a real spirit killer. Why do you think so many kids are walking around like zombies? They are afraid of sincere contemplation. Repress the questions of the heart and demand reason and you’ll only get kids hiding behind psychological shells. The fruits of modern education.
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:
The futility of reason was known by Socrates, Plato …
In the Phaedo, the dialogue about the fate of the soul, a fate which cannot be known by the living, Socrates warns against misologic, that is, hatred of reason. Socrates spent his life engaged in the pursuit of wisdom through reasoned discussion, dialectic. The best we can do is to examine what seems to us to be best and most likely to be true. This is what Socrates referred to as his “second sailing”. The failure of reason to access the Forms should not result in misologic or the idea that reason is futile. Plato’s creation of a world of Forms is not a revelation of a higher truth, and our imagining it does not lead to a higher understanding.
The idea is that a person has to bypass their celebrated reason in order to open to understanding.
Where in the dialogues do we find such a claim? See instead the discussion of hypothesis is the Republic to get a clearer idea of what he is really talking about. Dialectic or dialogic makes absolutely no sense if one attempts to bypass reason.
Needleman:

The Buddha goes to help people who are suffering in hell, and in order to communicate to those who are living in hell, he has to speak in the form of a lie.
The purpose of such lies, as the story says, is to get people out of the house, not to give them entry into the “castle”. In other words, it takes an impediment away, but mistaking the lie for the truth itself becomes an impediment. Being told that there are “toys” is only effective if one eventually comes to understand that there are no toys. That was merely an expedient. The “transcendent, higher mind” you refer to is just a toy that does not exist unless one has himself attained that transcendent, higher mind. This is what is known as in Buddhism as having “legs without eyes”. You are moving but cannot see where you are or where you are going.
My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy.
And it is exactly this that Socrates said can leadsto misologic. Why? Because philosophy cannot do what they want it to do, it cannot solve the mysteries, it cannot reveal the Truth, it cannot “bypass reason” and provide entrance to the eternal verities, it cannot give you access to God.
When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.
This may be true for those who acknowledge that there are unanswerable questions. If this is what you mean by “understanding” then I agree, but with your talk of transcending the cave, higher levels of reality, etc., it is clear that this is not what you mean and so, you have become misogic and feel the need to proclaim reason futile.

Indeed, know thyself.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Burning ghost »

Nick_A -

You've distanced yourself too far away from the people you are engaging with. You make some provocative statements and then expect people not to be provoked.

It is beginning to sound like you are preaching. Maybe take an approach that doesn't refer to anything of religious content?
AKA badgerjelly
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Fooloso4 wrote:
The failure of reason to access the Forms should not result in misologic or the idea that reason is futile. Plato’s creation of a world of Forms is not a revelation of a higher truth, and our imagining it does not lead to a higher understanding.
On what basis do you deny A conscious source outside of time and space within which forms remain as potentials?
"The difference between more or less intelligent men is like the difference between criminals condemned to life imprisonment in smaller or larger cells. The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like a condemned man who is proud of his large cell.” ~ Simone Weil
The point is that acknowledging the limitations of reason is not misologic. This is as foolish as admitting that a person cannot saw wood with a wrench shows a bias against a wrench.
Dialectic or dialogic makes absolutely no sense if one attempts to bypass reason.
Of course it does. The idea is to come to the end of what reason can verify. That is why the Oracle called Socrates a man of wisdom. All those Socrates questioned were skilled men of reason but were incapable of understanding. They lacked the wisdom to experience their ignorance.
The “transcendent, higher mind” you refer to is just a toy that does not exist unless one has himself attained that transcendent, higher mind. This is what is known as in Buddhism as having “legs without eyes”. You are moving but cannot see where you are or where you are going.
Of course. The process is called awakening. The idea is that we are psychologically asleep and existing as creatures of reaction in Plato’s cave. What does this have to do with higher mind? The first step in opening to conscious human potential is admitting the human condition; what we ARE.
And it is exactly this that Socrates said can lead to misologic. Why? Because philosophy cannot do what they want it to do, it cannot solve the mysteries, it cannot reveal the Truth, it cannot “bypass reason” and provide entrance to the eternal verities, it cannot give you access to God.
Why hate reason if it leads you to the point where a person can experience its limitations? The purpose of philosophy isn’t to provide answers but rather to create questions inviting the quality of contemplation that opens the mind rather than closing it by praising useless arguments as intelligent.
This may be true for those who acknowledge that there are unanswerable questions. If this is what you mean by “understanding” then I agree, but with your talk of transcending the cave, higher levels of reality, etc., it is clear that this is not what you mean and so, you have become misogic and feel the need to proclaim reason futile.

Indeed, know thyself.
What do you think leaving the cave means? It means acquiring the understanding to admit the human condition that puts us in this position while making the necessary awakening efforts to inwardly pursue the process of awakening. A person can become intellectually aware of the potential for levels of reality and begin to sense it but that is just an indication The process of beginning to know thyself requires conscious attention which is beyond the limitations of binary logic. The futility of reason.
Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself. –Abba Evagrius the Monk
Burning ghost wrote: It is beginning to sound like you are preaching. Maybe take an approach that doesn't refer to anything of religious content?
What religion do you believe I am espousing? Is “Know Thyself’ strictly a religious idea and is supporting it considered by you to be preaching?
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:
On what basis do you deny A conscious source outside of time and space within which forms remain as potentials?
I do not know what you mean by “forms remain as potentials”. If you are referring to Plato’s Forms, the basis is the fact that they are Plato’s creation and he provides us with good reasons to reject this creation. I have discussed this in great detail and provided references.

If you are talking about something else, and the idea of a conscious source is certainly something other than what Plato says about the Forms, then as far as I am concerned the question is not why I reject it but why I should accept it? It is just one of many things we are told.
The point is that acknowledging the limitations of reason is not misologic.
You make the claim that reason is futile and talk about bypassing reason in order to get somewhere else. The idea that reason is an impediment to getting where you want to be is misology.

Of course it does. The idea is to come to the end of what reason can verify.

The goal of dialectic is not verification. Determining the limits of reason is not the same as bypassing reason. Determining the limits of reason is not to discover a conscious source outside of time and space.
That is why the Oracle called Socrates a man of wisdom.
The Oracle said that no man was wiser than Socrates. Socrates wisdom was his knowledge of his ignorance. In other words, no knowledge of Forms or a conscious source or higher levels of reality, etc. And since no man is wiser than Socrates no other man had this knowledge either. No awakening to higher truths.
The process is called awakening.
In Buddhism there is awakening, but it is not a process in the sense that there is anything we can do, no method or technique or practice that leads to enlightenment. It either happens or it doesn’t. So unless you are an enlightened Buddha you are just playing with your toys. Plato gives us the image of ascent from the cave, but look at how it happens. It is not the result of method or technique or practice. There is no one in the entire Platonic literature who is identified as having escaped the cave, only the unnamed philosophers in the Republic who are, strictly speaking, not philosophers but gods. No one who is wiser than Socrates. No enlightened masters. No sages.
The idea is that we are psychologically asleep …
It is not a psychological sleep for Plato, it is the epistemological condition of human existence, together with a poetic ontology. It is not a psychological sleep in Buddhism either. You tend to psychologize the Bible, Plato, and Buddhism. That is something you bring to your attempt to understand. As such it is an impediment.
Why hate reason if it leads you to the point where a person can experience its limitations?
Read the statement you quoted. It answers your question.
The purpose of philosophy isn’t to provide answers but rather to create questions inviting the quality of contemplation that opens the mind rather than closing it by praising useless arguments as intelligent.
But you repeatedly show that you think you have found answers. What is this talk of conscious human potential if not an answer you believe lies beyond reason?
What do you think leaving the cave means?
We have discussed this. Please give me the courtesy of reading what I say.
It means acquiring the understanding to admit the human condition that puts us in this position while making the necessary awakening efforts to inwardly pursue the process of awakening.
That is what it means to you. You see, more answers when you claim it is about the questions.
A person can become intellectually aware of the potential for levels of reality …
Why do you keep using the term ‘potential’? If there are levels of reality then they are actual not potential. What does intellectually aware of the potential mean? It seems to mean nothing more than the idea that there may be levels of reality. As long as it is only a possibility, something that may potentially be the case, then there is no awakening to anything other than a possibility. It remains something that someone has told you that you believe.
The process of beginning to know thyself requires conscious attention which is beyond the limitations of binary logic.
Reason and binary logic are not the same thing. Knowing one’s self begins with honest self-reflection, the ability to look unflinchingly at yourself. Looking beyond yourself to the many things you have been told about higher levels of reality, awakening, and escape from a cave prevent you from seeing because you are either not looking in the right direction or looking through the lens of the many things you have been told.
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