What's the most interesting philosophical thing you've ever heard?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm bored. What's the most interesting philosophical thing you've ever heard?

The most??

Tough question, as I don't really grade them.

'I only know that I know nothing' -Socrates-

'Men are four:

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.' -not sure-

I think most people here are of type 2, though they profess they are type 4.

'If you say that you can, or you say that you can't, your right' -Henry Ford-

Once I asserted the following to a self proclaimed skeptic here at the PNF:
'Q: When is a skeptic not a skeptic?
A: When he's not skeptical of his own skepticism.'
To which he replied: 'Well, I can't be skeptical of everything.'

I think what I find most interesting is when someone says something as if definitive, which undermines the truth value of their statement.

Any thoughts?

[Jaded Sage]

Yeah, you're not getting the full benefit of your skepticism if you're not also skeptical of your own skeptical tendencies. It's like, what's the point? (He said somewhat sarcastically).

[marjoram_blues]

That the present moment does not exist.
What we call a present moment is the moment in which future changes to the past.
But the present as such has no dimension, no reality.

So how can people who claim to live in the present do so ?

Que sera,sera

Doris Day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

My.mom used to sing that to me when I was little....that was a good memory. Thanks M

Lovely to hear from you again, AS - and thanks for sharing your magical moments. Hope you and your family have a good time over the Christmas period. Keep well, dear friend
Look forward to more natters in the New Year...

[Jaded Sage]

'Men are four:

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.'

I think most people here are of type 2, though they profess they are type 4.

Also, no way, dude. Most people, both on this site and off this site, are type 1. Or maybe I'm just arrogant. But I'm pretty sure I'm not.

[Obvious Leo]

When I burn my hand on a hot stove, I perceive the heat, but not via reason, and therefore non-conceptually.

I'm not sure that this example is analogous because our perception of heat is biologically autonomous rather than instinctual. However I guess the distinction is a rather trivial one since it still requires neurological information processing.

Does that mean a word is a theory?

My intended meaning was that once we formulate an idea into words it becomes a theory.

Maybe I'm just addicted to bullshit.

It's a common human frailty which must be resisted at all costs. Millions of people throughout the world continued to believe that Uri Geller could bend spoons by telekinesis even AFTER he confessed that his entire act was a scam. They decided that he was forced into this confession by an unknown secret organisation. Go figure!

That's the objective reality that only God can have knowledge of, right?

No. The concept of noumenon has nothing to do with god because god is a construct of the mind of the believer.

[uwot]

There's math without the equals sign? Huh.

There's a bit more to maths than arithmetic and algebra.

Yeah, you'd think they'd cover that in a phil of science class, but they didn't. Whatever the standard one is. Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion? That's all I remember from grade school.

That's more or less what Francis Bacon said in the New Organon, you would have covered that in the first few weeks of any decent philosophy of science course. You should be familiar with Kuhn's paradigms, perhaps Lakatos' research programs, and if you stayed the course, Feyerabend's methodological anarchy. Between them they pretty much kick any notion of 'scientific method' into touch. Which is why, as Obvious Leo points out, physics in particular, but science more generally, is instrumentalist in nature, regardless of the ontological beliefs of any given scientist.

But check this out:

Yeah, so think about like this: I call them open and closed systems, tho there is probably an official word for it (esoteric and exoteric or something). You basically definte it or answer it from the other side, like they say there is no number before infinity, but you can describe it saying infinity minus one (or infinity minus zero point infinite zeros one).

Well, that depends on what you mean by infinity; do you know about Hilbert's Hotel, for instance?

So I ask the question: what is good? And the closed system answer would be "that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways" and an open system answer is whatever the dictionary says, like "to be desired or approved of." The closed system answer doesn't really ever tell us much, at least not at first. The system has to grow. Eventually it should tell us as much as an equation full of variables. But the idea is to answer it from the other side, and be precise. Oh, and to be infallible.

That's all very well, but who decides what is good or bad in the first place?

I found out Buddha did the same thing, or I may have gotten it from him. When asked what is wholesome, he answered, "That which is not unwholesome." I call that a closed system answer.

So there's wholesome and unwholesome, and nothing in between?

[Jaded Sage]

When I burn my hand on a hot stove, I perceive the heat, but not via reason, and therefore non-conceptually.

I'm not sure that this example is analogous because our perception of heat is biologically autonomous rather than instinctual. However I guess the distinction is a rather trivial one since it still requires neurological information processing.

Does that mean a word is a theory?

My intended meaning was that once we formulate an idea into words it becomes a theory.

Maybe I'm just addicted to bullshit.

It's a common human frailty which must be resisted at all costs. Millions of people throughout the world continued to believe that Uri Geller could bend spoons by telekinesis even AFTER he confessed that his entire act was a scam. They decided that he was forced into this confession by an unknown secret organisation. Go figure!

That's the objective reality that only God can have knowledge of, right?

No. The concept of noumenon has nothing to do with god because god is a construct of the mind of the believer.

I thought the idea was that all perception is influenced by theory. Or maybe I misunderstood.

You're going to count neurological proccess as a theory? C'mon, man. No way.

"Account" or "explanation", are they synonymous with "theory" here?

I think Kant was being sarcastic when he reportedly said that. The idea is to know a thing in and of itself, correct?

[Obvious Leo]

You're going to count neurological proccess as a theory?

I didn't say that. I said that the outcome of a neurological process MIGHT be a theory.

The idea is to know a thing in and of itself, correct?

No. Kant was quite unambiguous on this point and so am I. The ding an sich is unknowable by definition, which means that the notion of "objective" knowledge is not a valid construct. ALL knowledge is subjective, although this obviously includes the inter-subjective.

[Walker]

Yes I can buy that and intuition is a useful enough word to define it. I rely heavily on intuition myself although its not a lot of use in philosophy unless you can find a way to structure your intuitions into a coherent procedure of thought, which is no easy task.

Integrating the unknown. It’s following a sense of what’s right while discovering what’s right, without preconceptions.

In thinking about it, intuition has an aspect of looking for an answer or a solution, or to make a simple choice, such as turn left, or right. In this way it’s connected to intent.

But then other action occurs that is far removed from any specific intent.

For instance, just the other day I was having a cozy chat with one of my daughters while she was cooking for her kids on the gas stove, while here for Christmas cheer. The day before yesterday, I think. Maybe it was the day before that. We were talking politics, but we weren’t really having a discussion. Just some observations back and forth.

In the conversation I called someone a contrarian. I’ve used the word “contrary,” in my life, but not often. And I never remember using the word, “contrarian.”

My daughter is sharp as a tack and she laughingly commented on the this word. A delighted kind of laugh, like a couple of months ago when I called turkeys, “wiley.” The point is, for some reason she felt moved to voice a reaction to that particular word. I too thought it kind of a strange word after I spoke it, but it fit perfectly with the thought I was expressing.

Awhile later I went to the computer machine to peruse, and the first posting I read on Philosophy Now forum contained the word, contrarian. And it was a recent posting. Leo wrote the word.

So, this stuff happens all the time. Little stuff, sometimes big stuff. This is so random and passing that I forgot about it until the word “intuition” was mentioned. It’s not really knowing or intuition, since it’s not connected to a context or intent. Just a random word that I’ve never used before popping into the conversation out of nowhere. And it’s not just words, there are other levels of physicality, such as inexplicable appearances of lost things coinciding with significant events. It’s been going on for years and I don’t contemplate it. More important things to do.

Usually there's no context to mention such things. Things like this really serve no purpose, and there’s no purpose in speaking of it other than wonder, but others can’t share the particular experience or the wonder, so best to just forget looking to minor inexplicables for answers, which I do.

It’s the same as when you feel physically sick and you don’t tell people. There’s no point in telling people if they can’t take away the sickness. Telling only brings the person into your suffering, though sometimes that’s necessary.

But when energy is high some strange things can happen. The smaller stuff is more like a road sign saying, pay attention to this. So, one gives attention to other associated aspects of the manifest situation, such as stoves and other things. I think it’s purely physical, not at all unique so many can relate, and noticing it happens when ego isn’t shouting.

[Jaded Sage]

I feel like I'm aging myself, but with math. Get it? All I remember of phil of sci is the eras, antirealism, Kuhn, and a bit about bayesian. No, what's up with the hotel thing?

That's all very well, but who decides what is good or bad in the first place?

I do. Reason does. That's what this process is. Building a closed system is deciding what these things are.

So there's wholesome and unwholesome, and nothing in between?

Man, I used to have this whole entire system modeled off of several cultures, but I lost it. I say there is un-wholesome, semi-wholesome, wholesome, and super-wholesome. But I don't think that was the intention of the Buddha. My completely speculative understanding which is based on absolutely no research but an intuitive grasp of the text in question itself, is that there was a dependency on a priestly caste (okay, a lil research) to decide what was wholesome and not, and this dude came along and was like, "No, you decide what is wholesome." And they're like, "How?" And he's like, "It's easy. Whatever isn't unwholesome is okay to do." In hindsight I think he was one of the greatest revolutionary minds in history. Shame he's reduced to, "Live in the present moment, dude man." For me the importance is that his answer can't be wrong, and it's exact, maybe because of it's exactness. So long as the word doesn't also imply its opposite, and retains its meaning, and not signifies its opposite, it works (btw, when things contain their opposites, something amazing happens when you try to make an opposite of that thing. It like grows exponentially inventing new forms of itself).

The trouble is it doesn't tell us anything (at least not much about goodness, the Buddha had a slightly different intention, and my definition is unjustified in setting a standard—why is being good in one way instead of two ways or all ways enough to make it good, why does being bad in only one way disqualify it from being good, why think of it in terms of ways at all. I don't fucking know. Because that's all I came up with). It might as well say, "What is roxiness? Whatever is not unroxiness." Or, "The snozzberries taste like snozzberries." Right now it relies on an intuitive grasp of the concepts. This closed system thing is just a way of refining those intuitions.

[Jaded Sage]

You're going to count neurological proccess as a theory?

I didn't say that. I said that the outcome of a neurological process MIGHT be a theory.

The idea is to know a thing in and of itself, correct?

No. Kant was quite unambiguous on this point and so am I. The ding an sich is unknowable by definition, which means that the notion of "objective" knowledge is not a valid construct. ALL knowledge is subjective, although this obviously includes the inter-subjective.

Oh, my mistake. So it is possible to perceive without being influenced by a theory? But whenever we observe things based on a theory it is impossible not to be influenced by the theory? Is that correct?


Yeah, I looked it up. We're talking about the same Kant thing, I just worded it poorly.

[Jaded Sage]

Yes I can buy that and intuition is a useful enough word to define it. I rely heavily on intuition myself although its not a lot of use in philosophy unless you can find a way to structure your intuitions into a coherent procedure of thought, which is no easy task.

Integrating the unknown. It’s following a sense of what’s right while discovering what’s right, without preconceptions.

In thinking about it, intuition has an aspect of looking for an answer or a solution, or to make a simple choice, such as turn left, or right. In this way it’s connected to intent.

But then other action occurs that is far removed from any specific intent.

For instance, just the other day I was having a cozy chat with one of my daughters while she was cooking for her kids on the gas stove, while here for Christmas cheer. The day before yesterday, I think. Maybe it was the day before that. We were talking politics, but we weren’t really having a discussion. Just some observations back and forth.

In the conversation I called someone a contrarian. I’ve used the word “contrary,” in my life, but not often. And I never remember using the word, “contrarian.”

My daughter is sharp as a tack and she laughingly commented on the this word. A delighted kind of laugh, like a couple of months ago when I called turkeys, “wiley.” The point is, for some reason she felt moved to voice a reaction to that particular word. I too thought it kind of a strange word after I spoke it, but it fit perfectly with the thought I was expressing.

Awhile later I went to the computer machine to peruse, and the first posting I read on Philosophy Now forum contained the word, contrarian. And it was a recent posting. Leo wrote the word.

So, this stuff happens all the time. Little stuff, sometimes big stuff. This is so random and passing that I forgot about it until the word “intuition” was mentioned. It’s not really knowing or intuition, since it’s not connected to a context or intent. Just a random word that I’ve never used before popping into the conversation out of nowhere. And it’s not just words, there are other levels of physicality, such as inexplicable appearances of lost things coinciding with significant events. It’s been going on for years and I don’t contemplate it. More important things to do.

Usually there's no context to mention such things. Things like this really serve no purpose, and there’s no purpose in speaking of it other than wonder, but others can’t share the particular experience or the wonder, so best to just forget looking to minor inexplicables for answers, which I do.

It’s the same as when you feel physically sick and you don’t tell people. There’s no point in telling people if they can’t take away the sickness. Telling only brings the person into your suffering, though sometimes that’s necessary.

But when energy is high some strange things can happen. The smaller stuff is more like a road sign saying, pay attention to this. So, one gives attention to other associated aspects of the manifest situation, such as stoves and other things. I think it’s purely physical, not at all unique so many can relate, and noticing it happens when ego isn’t shouting.

It sounds like you're describing a cross between discernment and synchronicity.

[Walker]

Evolution moves from simple to complex.

Entropy moves from complex to simple.

Do you use “closed system” to explain away the contradiction?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You're going to count neurological proccess as a theory?

I didn't say that. I said that the outcome of a neurological process MIGHT be a theory.

The idea is to know a thing in and of itself, correct?

No. Kant was quite unambiguous on this point and so am I. The ding an sich is unknowable by definition, which means that the notion of "objective" knowledge is not a valid construct. ALL knowledge is subjective, although this obviously includes the inter-subjective.

Oh, my mistake. So it is possible to perceive without being influenced by a theory? But whenever we observe things based on a theory it is impossible not to be influenced by the theory? Is that correct?


Yeah, I looked it up. We're talking about the same Kant thing, I just worded it poorly.

You seem to be on the wrong page. Der ding an sich is about perception. The idea is that human perception is limited, as it must be, by your POV and the obvious limits of the senses.
As humans, try as we might, we can never fully perceive that which lies before us.
There is no doubt that we all carry impicit and explicit theories about the word, and we also have expectations and anticipate the world we perceive. Knowing all this can be helpful to get closer to the ding an sich.
But perceptuality, upon which we all rely , even without theory still means we are remote from the thing in-itself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Evolution moves from simple to complex.

Entropy moves from complex to simple.

Do you use “closed system” to explain away the contradiction?

It's not a contradiction. The system has to be open to energy, and it is the passing of the energy from a high state (light) to a disorganised low state (heat) , which enables evolution to occur.