Evolving philosophy

[Age]

Absolute knowledge is impossible.

And you know this absolutely.

Sure!

Saying, "absolute knowledge is impossible", is expressing a knowledge as though it is absolutely true, which it could be said is actually 'absolute knowledge', itself. So, an extremely contradictory statement and thing to say.

[Age]

This human NEED to think we could (and do) “know” such things: what difference does it really make? Can’t we live effective and enjoyable lives without claiming to possess some particular ultimate unchanging knowledge?

From Jacob Needleman's book "The Heart of Philosophy"... /...The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy

I think that philosophy is most powerful and truthful when it recognizes and allows growth, flexibility, and change... because that is NATURAL, and we cannot know some ultimate truth from our extraordinarily limited human perspectives, NOR is there even likely to be such a thing as some ultimate truth.

Is growth, flexibility, and change NATURAL?

If no, then why say it is?

But, if growth, flexibility, and change is NATURAL, then is some ultimate truth?

If no, then why not?

But, if that is some ultimate truth, then this completely contradicts your statement/truth that there is NOT even likely to be such a thing as some ultimate truth.

See, the more you, or "others", 'try to' argue for your position that there is NO 'ultimate truth', then the more you are contradicting your very OWN BELIEF/TRUTH.

As I continually say and have already pointed out, the more one 'tries to' argue that there is NO absolute nor objective truth, then there more WRONG they are.

Nothing in the Universe suggests that it is static.

And NO one I have seen is suggesting this. So, you are 'trying to' argue against some thing, which NO one has even said nor implied.

Rigid philosophy is clearly contrived human fantasy.

Yet here you are rigidly affirming that that the Universe is not static, and rigidly believing that there is NOT 'some ultimate truth', which, hopefully is recognized by now, is 'some ultimate truth', of yours.

Humans like to try to control and claim to know, but their supposed control and knowledge only goes so far.

Which is EXACTLY what 'you', "lacewing", are doing here, and which can also, obviously, only go so far. As evidenced and already proven true.

Refusing to accept contrived fantasy is not a lack of love for philosophy -- rather, it is a refusal to put the Universe in a box. There is VALUE (for whatever its worth) from all different paths of philosophy. Selecting ONE path to rigidly follow, preach, and identify with is as limited and self-indulgent as it sounds -- especially when one dishonestly and foolishly claims it is the only true path.

AND, do 'you', "lacewing", claim that there is NOT 'some ultimate truth' but growth, flexibility and change is NATURAL?

If so, then is claimed to be the only truth path?

What other paths could there be, to you?

But, if you do not claim the above to be true, then what do you claim to be true?

See EVERY time you claim that there is not one path, then that is the one path, which you claim is the true path.

[Belinda]

Oppression is more than secret police. Oppression includes also the method of thought control which depends upon expensive private schools where rich people send their sons to be groomed for positions of power.

What is a, "position of power?" Is this some kind of conspiracy theory? And what does, "grooming," mean? I know you have a problem in the UK with Muslim men grooming underage girls as sex slaves. Seems to me you pick an odd kind of grooming to worry about, without batting an eye at the 19,000 plus girls who are endangered. Oh, I forgot, you're not supposed talk about that because you will probably be accused of hate speech. So much for free speech, eh!?

Despite straw men set up by RCSaunders, I will keep on topic. It's hardly a conspiracy theory that schools exclusively for rich people tend to perpetuate class division , and tend to frustrate social mobility.

[RCSaunders]

Oppression is more than secret police. Oppression includes also the method of thought control which depends upon expensive private schools where rich people send their sons to be groomed for positions of power.

What is a, "position of power?" Is this some kind of conspiracy theory? And what does, "grooming," mean? I know you have a problem in the UK with Muslim men grooming underage girls as sex slaves. Seems to me you pick an odd kind of grooming to worry about, without batting an eye at the 19,000 plus girls who are endangered. Oh, I forgot, you're not supposed talk about that because you will probably be accused of hate speech. So much for free speech, eh!?

Despite straw men set up by RCSaunders, I will keep on topic. It's hardly a conspiracy theory that schools exclusively for rich people tend to perpetuate class division , and tend to frustrate social mobility.

There is very little difference between those who view human beings in terms of race, ethnicity, "gender," or class, or any other way of ranking individuals in terms of some group one assigns them to. It is that collectivist view of humanity that perpetuates divisions. Until human beings begin to view other human beings as individuals, not in terms of which clan or group or class or category they belong to, your dream of a classless society are impossible.

[RCSaunders]

Everyone is different and there is no, "one way," everyone must think, believe, choose, and live, which is what is wrong with every political ideology which would foist its views on everyone. I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.

me too: that's why I advocate for a chartered, natural rights minarchy

We agree to the same principle, we disagree about, "implementation."

I believe only individuals can make themselves free, you believe some kind of collective system can do it, but it doesn't matter so long as neither of us wants to force our view on the other. I wish you success in whatever you pursue.

[RCSaunders]

The reason that 'you', "your" 'self', are so CLOSED is, as I continually point out, because of your ALREADY firmly HELD ONTO and fixed BELIEFS.

And as I continually point out to you, you don't know what you're talking about in regard to me. So please fuck off with your dumbass analysis and delusional conclusions.

We don't agree on much, Lacewing, but I certainly empathize (can't believe I used that word) with you here. The tendency of so many on this board to psychologize, read other's minds, and know exactly what others think and believe can be infuriating. I doubt Age will get it, though.

[Belinda]

What is a, "position of power?" Is this some kind of conspiracy theory? And what does, "grooming," mean? I know you have a problem in the UK with Muslim men grooming underage girls as sex slaves. Seems to me you pick an odd kind of grooming to worry about, without batting an eye at the 19,000 plus girls who are endangered. Oh, I forgot, you're not supposed talk about that because you will probably be accused of hate speech. So much for free speech, eh!?

Despite straw men set up by RCSaunders, I will keep on topic. It's hardly a conspiracy theory that schools exclusively for rich people tend to perpetuate class division , and tend to frustrate social mobility.

There is very little difference between those who view human beings in terms of race, ethnicity, "gender," or class, or any other way of ranking individuals in terms of some group one assigns them to. It is that collectivist view of humanity that perpetuates divisions. Until human beings begin to view other human beings as individuals, not in terms of which clan or group or class or category they belong to, your dream of a classless society are impossible.

But I don't dream of a classless society that's another straw man of your own making. My vote goes to politicians who improve education by removing schools that are too expensive for any but a rich elite; providing tertiary education for all; and providing quality nursery education where children learn through play.

[RCSaunders]

But I don't dream of a classless society that's another straw man of your own making.

My mistake. If you believe individuals should be assigned to different classes, that's fine. I don't.

My vote goes to politicians who improve education by removing schools that are too expensive for any but a rich elite; providing tertiary education for all; and providing quality nursery education where children learn through play.

I don't want anybody's money taken from them to pay for the education of anyone else or their children. It makes no difference at all to me how much a school costs so long as one pays for it with money they have earned, not confiscated by force from others.

[Lacewing]

Everyone is different and there is no, "one way," everyone must think, believe, choose, and live, which is what is wrong with every political ideology which would foist its views on everyone.

Agreed. I would replace the word "political" with the word "any", because I think this applies to religious and cultural ideologies as well.

I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.

Sounds good. What is actually considered force, though? We are all subjected to controlling influences that seek to change the way we think, believe, choose, and live. It can happen through a relentless onslaught of coercion, intimidation, ridicule, condemnation, judgments, distortions, etc. -- all for the purpose of defining and/or controlling how things are or should be... based on a particular viewpoint.

[Belinda]

But I don't dream of a classless society that's another straw man of your own making.

My mistake. If you believe individuals should be assigned to different classes, that's fine. I don't.

My vote goes to politicians who improve education by removing schools that are too expensive for any but a rich elite; providing tertiary education for all; and providing quality nursery education where children learn through play.

I don't want anybody's money taken from them to pay for the education of anyone else or their children. It makes no difference at all to me how much a school costs so long as one pays for it with money they have earned, not confiscated by force from others.

It is really dishonest of you to try to put words in my mouth. I am not guilty of the opinions you impute to me.
Very expensive fee paying schools cannot help but school only the children of rich parents. So such schools help to perpetuate the class system where there is little possibility for individuals to better themselves by getting better educated. When these expensive schools such as Eton are removed then the closed club of old Etonians will also disappear, and our political leaders and legislators will be drawn from a wider set of individuals than the narrow set of those who inherit wealth from their parents.

[henry quirk]

Everyone is different and there is no, "one way," everyone must think, believe, choose, and live, which is what is wrong with every political ideology which would foist its views on everyone. I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.

me too: that's why I advocate for a chartered, natural rights minarchy

We agree to the same principle, we disagree about, "implementation."

*I believe only individuals can make themselves free, **you believe some kind of collective system can do it, but it doesn't matter ***so long as neither of us wants to force our view on the other. I wish you success in whatever you pursue.

*individuals are naturally free

**the chartered natural rights minarchy (not a system or collective) would exist to preserve and further that

***

[Belinda]

Absolute knowledge is impossible.

And you know this absolutely.

Sure!

Saying, "absolute knowledge is impossible", is expressing a knowledge as though it is absolutely true, which it could be said is actually 'absolute knowledge', itself. So, an extremely contradictory statement and thing to say.

Okay. According to my epistemologocal perspective absolute knowledge is impossible.

[RCSaunders]

Okay. According to my epistemologocal perspective absolute knowledge is impossible.

Just out of curiosity, because I have no intention of arguing about it, what do you mean by, "absolute knowledge." The reason I'm asking is because, what I mean by absolute knowledge is only, "certain knowledge," by which I mean knowledge I cannot doubt, such as my knowledge that I am alive and that I am conscious. I am also certain there is heavier than air human flight and that radio signals can be transmitted around the world and even to the planets.

Some people seem to mean something more than just, "certain knowledge," as though to know anything about something they must know everything about it. For example, "you can never know absolutely what an apple is because you never know everything there is to know about it."

Of course you may have even another view of what you mean by absolute knowledge. I know some theists who believe all knowledge is doubtful and that only omniscience is absolute knowledge. I think you can see why what you mean by absolute knowledge is not obvious.

[Age]

Life in Britain is relatively free of oppression. No country is absolutely permissive.

Your personal experience doesn't count.

No matter where you live, or how oppressive a government is, if you personally have no desire or ambition to do anything the government forbids, or are able to evade it, you will not consider that government oppressive. I have personally known two individuals living in communist China who were not all personally oppressed. One is an American doctor who went originally to China as a, "doctor without borders," married a Chinese girl, and lives there now very happily. The other was frankly a smuggler who knew how to play the politics (paying the squeeze) and generally operate under the radar. They both lived just as they chose, but it was in spite of the oppression. There is no way to honestly describe the Chinese communist government as anything but oppressive.

As your examples demonstrate, oppression for one person doesn't necessarily feel like oppression for another. Perspective determines reality for each person, yes? There are many kinds of oppression everywhere, all the time -- against women, races, sexual orientation, theists/non-theists, etc. If you don't LIVE it, you might not see it, nor care.

You may stand in the midst of all of that, and choose the enemies you feel it worthy to rage against, and encourage others to focus like you do. But truly, who decides... for everyone... what the perspective should be?

The answer to this is OBVIOUS.

You simply cannot know all of those lives. Standing in judgment... making blanket claims about groups of people... and spreading toxicity about things you don't live or understand... is simply in service to yourself and your identity.

[Age]

Your personal experience doesn't count.

No matter where you live, or how oppressive a government is, if you personally have no desire or ambition to do anything the government forbids, or are able to evade it, you will not consider that government oppressive. I have personally known two individuals living in communist China who were not all personally oppressed. One is an American doctor who went originally to China as a, "doctor without borders," married a Chinese girl, and lives there now very happily. The other was frankly a smuggler who knew how to play the politics (paying the squeeze) and generally operate under the radar. They both lived just as they chose, but it was in spite of the oppression. There is no way to honestly describe the Chinese communist government as anything but oppressive.

As your examples demonstrate, oppression for one person doesn't necessarily feel like oppression for another. Perspective determines reality for each person, yes? There are many kinds of oppression everywhere, all the time -- against women, races, sexual orientation, theists/non-theists, etc. If you don't LIVE it, you might not see it, nor care.

You may stand in the midst of all of that, and choose the enemies you feel it worthy to rage against, and encourage others to focus like you do. But truly, who decides... for everyone... what the perspective should be? You simply cannot know all of those lives. Standing in judgment... making blanket claims about groups of people... and spreading toxicity about things you don't live or understand... is simply in service to yourself and your identity.

The way to know others' lives is via empathy. Empathy is learned through education in the humanities i.e. philosophy, history, drama, novels and other expressive literature, anthropology, theology, art appreciation, and history of ideas.

Well, this is but just one way to look at 'empathy', itself.