What is 'Enlightenment'?

[TruthAgenda]

So, you decided to go ad hom. Which is also a form of reasoning, but a poor one.

The main problem with this response is that inside the larger argument against reason, there are smaller arguments with conclusions about reality and perception. So, you are not just using reason to undermine reason, but also drawing subconclusions about other things.

There seems to be an odd spate of identifying anyone who posts here as a philosopher and using it as pejorative term. I'm not a philosopher. I'm interested in philosophy.

No ad hom. I'm simply saying that I would expect those on a philosophy forum to be resistant to an idea which invalidates all philosophy.

[TruthAgenda]

Is there a way to 'think' without words, or language?

If yes, then how, exactly?

Yes. Thinking with words is totally exclusive from cognition, deduction, and understanding. At least, as far as interpreting our perceptions goes. And when it comes to being 'alive'/responsive/perceptive, the inner-monologue does nothing but debilitate. For every bit of focus aimed behind the eyes (at the inner-monologue/reasoning process), it is taken from what is in front of the eyes.

But I used those provided symbols, words, and/or language to work out what the Universe actually is and how the Universe actually works.

I do NOT use those symbols to create 'a reason'; 'a philosophy'; 'a doctrine', nor 'a purpose', neither.

A symbolic representation of it, sure. However what if reality or "how the universe works" is beyond our comprehension, and therefore beyond our language? Aren't we then deluding ourselves with the word-equations we come up with to describe it?

But, not necessarily so. And, only if one 'thinks' this way.

Necessarily. The word for 'turtle' is not a turtle. Even a graphical drawing/symbol of a turtle, is not a turtle. Can you ever capture all that a turtle is, with your symbols? Can you capture all that you are, with symbols? Your full, living, dynamic reality?

Yes, if, and when, you found the Right words.

How do you think you conveyed, to us, the 'reality', (or, more correctly, your BELIEF), that one can NOT convey the actual reality of 'it', that is; 'the sky is blue'?

If you could convey 'this' 'reality', with the Right words, then you CAN also convey the 'reality' of other 'things', with the Right words, as well.

Impossible. You will never convey the reality of sight with mere words. I wager that reality is beyond what our words can possibly capture.

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying for a while here now.

It is the younger of the human being species who can SEE the MOST, that is; SEE the MOST of what IS ACTUALLY True and Right, in Life. And, this is because their 'observations' are NOT DISTORTED by ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS like 'your', adult, observations ARE.

They see the most, because they are still seeing with their eyes. The longer one has an inner-monologue, the more it divides the mind with abstract and illusory concepts and divisions. The less focus one has for the senses. This is also why younger people are better able to deal with trauma. Much trauma, and things like depression, come from that state of dwelling in the mind, within the words we speak to ourselves and those which cycle ad-infinitum. You can re-experience that child-like power of perception simply by ridding the mind of the inner monologue.

This sounds like some kind of BELIEF of yours here, which you are 'trying to' convey to us.

I wouldn't be so foolish to assert a belief like this. I'm speaking from lived experience.

[popeye1945]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

[TruthAgenda]

It is the abandonment of reason.
..........

The difference between humans and an animal is the rational mind, i.e. the ability to reason.

While the Latin term itself originates in scholasticism, it reflects the Aristotelian view of man as a creature distinguished by a rational principle.
In the Nicomachean Ethics I.13, Aristotle states that the human being has a rational principle (Greek: λόγον ἔχον), on top of the nutritive life shared with plants, and the instinctual life shared with other animals, i. e., the ability to carry out rationally formulated projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal#:~

However, the function of reason has many levels of competences, i.e. there is

1. Proto-reason
2. Primal, crude Pure Reason
3. Progressive logical thinking
4. Reasoning with wisdom

A person who has abandoned reason in general will be the mercy of his animal instincts.
Worst is when a person rely on crude reason exposed to the basic instincts, e.g. theists clinging to an illusory God.
Worst still when a person rely on slightly higher reason but is dominated by the basic instincts, e.g. the malignant psychopath who is basically very intelligent.

Enlightenment is one who has the competence to optimize his well being with intelligence, reasoning with wisdom, in complementarity with his inherent and necessary instincts & emotions.

This is like Aristotle's anger management;

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

An enlightened person is one who can apply the above principle optimally to all his human functions which is controllable by any human.
In this case, the person must have the corresponding neural states to exercise the above.

When I speak of 'reason' within this context, I am speaking of "thinking with words".

I'd say the difference between animals and humans simply lies in scope/degree of intelligence. Even without language, and without what I'm referring to as reason, we are leagues above the animal mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, what is 'Reason'? 'Reason', is thinking with words. That's all it is.

No, sorry to disagree with you, but that's not "all" it is. That is what it is, in part, but not "all."

Reasoning can also be done through logic symbols, not using any actual "words." But even if it couldn't, it would be much more than just using words. Just as the scientific method is a way of thinking disciplined by special rules, "reasoning" rightly understood, is a disciplined form of connecting premises to conclusions in order to maximize the likelihood of locating truth.

You were given symbols (words) by your language, of abstract concepts, like 'good' and 'evil', like 'god', like 'identity', and even 'separateness'. Then, you use those symbols to create a reason; a philosophy; a doctrine; or a purpose.

Here, you are using the word in its informal sense, as a synonym for "rationale," or "argument." You're not using it the precise sense in which philosophers assess the word, as a rule-governed, disciplined, rigorous form of connecting premises to conclusions.

This, then, renders your argument what philosophers call "invalid," because you're guilty of shifting what they call your "middle term," ("reason") in the middle of trying to make a point. This error renders the conclusion not rationally compelling to a logical thinker anymore.

Keep in mind, these abstract concepts, which you take to be truth, or real, were created by someone other than you, whom you don't know.

The words were. The objects and entities they signify were not created by other people; they're realities in the external world, things at which your words 'aim' but do not depend on whether or not you find words for them, for their existence.

Words become our world.

No, they don't, actually. Not in anything other than a metaphorical and hyperbolical sense. Words don't "become" the world. The world is whatever it is. And our words are better or worse in dealing with it, depending on how effectively the identify the phenomenon found in the external world.

A symbol (word) is only a reference to a real or abstract thing, and therefore all of its' 'life' is lost to the symbol.

That's clearly not so.

Words don't actually have a "life" to lose, and they are a kind of symbol. So they can't "lose their life" to themselves.

(If this post is suddenly deleted, rest assured it is because there are people who do not want this information propagated.)

That seems unlikely. But there may be people like me, people who would wish to help you refine your ideas. And we might say something about the problems we see with the theory. That would be probable.

[TruthAgenda]

No, sorry to disagree with you, but that's not "all" it is. That is what it is, in part, but not "all."

Reasoning can also be done through logic symbols, not using any actual "words." But even if it couldn't, it would be much more than just using words. Just as the scientific method is a way of thinking disciplined by special rules, "reasoning" rightly understood, is a disciplined form of connecting premises to conclusions in order to maximize the likelihood of locating truth.

How can you reason without words? Your 'discipline' is formed by words. Words, are merely symbols, and therefore "logic symbols" are little different.

The words were. The objects and entities they signify were not created by other people; they're realities in the external world, things at which your words 'aim' but do not depend on whether or not you find words for them, for their existence.

However, naming something - creating that symbol, inherently influences your perception of it. For example, our names. Would people feel as separate from their reality and from each other, if we hadn't names - names which designate "you are separate"'? Can you account for and justify every separation/division that is created by our language? Do all the dichotomies (like 'good' and 'evil') have merit? Words shape our perception, and this has been studied if not proven by researchers in the past:
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Language shapes how the brain perceives time

Words don't actually have a "life" to lose, and they are a kind of symbol. So they can't "lose their life" to themselves.

That was actually my point. Words/symbols have no life. Reality (the things words are referencing) does. Therefore the life of the thing is lost. The symbol for a leaf, is not a leaf. The leaf is alive and changing with every moment. That "living reality" of the leaf, is lost when you make a symbol of it.

That seems unlikely. But there may be people like me, people who would wish to help you refine your ideas. And we might say something about the problems we see with the theory. That would be probable.

That would be appreciated. Though you'll have to forgive my lack of familiarity with philosophical discipline and diction.

[Immanuel Can]

No, sorry to disagree with you, but that's not "all" it is. That is what it is, in part, but not "all."

Reasoning can also be done through logic symbols, not using any actual "words." But even if it couldn't, it would be much more than just using words. Just as the scientific method is a way of thinking disciplined by special rules, "reasoning" rightly understood, is a disciplined form of connecting premises to conclusions in order to maximize the likelihood of locating truth.

How can you reason without words? Your 'discipline' is formed by words. Words, are merely symbols, and therefore "logic symbols" are little different.

Can you do mathematics? But in mathematics, you can operate without words. Like in logic, the symbols relate to each other rationally, within a closed symbol system. Nobody has to speak at all, or write a single linguistic utterance or word.

The words were. The objects and entities they signify were not created by other people; they're realities in the external world, things at which your words 'aim' but do not depend on whether or not you find words for them, for their existence.

However, naming something - creating that symbol, inherently influences your perception of it.

"Influences"? Yes, perhaps. "Distorts"? Not necessarily. Having a name doesn't make you a different person from the one you are. It just puts a label on what you are, the label "Tom" or "Harry" or "Bernice" or whatever. Will that be somewhat different than if you were named "David" or "Gertrude"? Maybe. But not different in very much, or in a way that, in most situations, limits your options in any way.

Words don't actually have a "life" to lose, and they are a kind of symbol. So they can't "lose their life" to themselves.

That was actually my point. Words/symbols have no life.

They're not supposed to "have a life." That's a metaphor, not a reality.

For example, the word "birch" is not a tree. But it indicates a kind of tree. It has no "life," and the tree does. But words are not supposed to have "life." They're only pointers or signposts to something that may or may not have life, but has reality outside of mere words. So nothing's wrong there.

Reality (the things words are referencing) does. Therefore the life of the thing is lost.

Nothing at all is "lost."

The word does its job -- it draws your attention to the real tree. That's all it's ever supposed to do.

The symbol for a leaf, is not a leaf. The leaf is alive and changing with every moment. That "living reality" of the leaf, is lost when you make a symbol of it.

I think you're worrying a lot about something terribly obvious. Words aren't the things they designate. So what? We knew that. That's why we invented a word to use...because we didn't want to cart around a bunch of trees all the time, and have to point to them every time we wanted to say something about a birch.

That seems unlikely. But there may be people like me, people who would wish to help you refine your ideas. And we might say something about the problems we see with the theory. That would be probable.

That would be appreciated. Though you'll have to forgive my lack of familiarity with philosophical discipline and diction.

That's okay. It's what this site is all about.

Here (at least ideally), we're supposed to be helping each other to refine our ideas. So we're not just throwing up a theory to other people and expecting them to agree with us, and getting offended if they don't; we're coming to make use of them as agents of questioning and conversation, so as to make our ideas better, or to help them improve their own. Ideally, it's a cooperative process in which both sides "win." We both get to walk away smarter, and maybe with some new ideas to work on. That's the best outcome, and what we should be doing.

Unfortunately, too many people here don't seem to get that, I'm afraid. We have our share of people who come with other things they think they want to do. But that's how it is in any online forum, I guess.

[Walker]

I'd say the difference between animals and humans simply lies in scope/degree of intelligence. Even without language, and without what I'm referring to as reason, we are leagues above the animal mind.

I was watching this animal show awhile back. A fella put himself into a transparent, bear-proof cube made of some space-age material that is likely distilled from petroleum.

Soon, a polar bear came sniffing around. It sniffed all around the 8’x8’ cube, even tipped it over to inspect the underside. Quite methodical and casual appearing, no rush. Then it focused attention on one point of the cube. The narrator explained that point must smell like lunch more than the other points, and thus logically would be the weakest point of the cube. Obviously, the bear made a deduction that correlated with the reality that exists outside of his bearskin.

The bear never broke into the big cube to eat the volunteer and not for lack of trying. The cube was too strong and that’s because the crazy Leftist government had not yet succeeded in using regulations to ban petroleum and petroleum products.

Conclusion: Humans are leagues above if not handicapped by crazy Leftists. This is because the natural human portal to the One Mind is larger than critter portals. This is why a human birth is the most advantageous, when not corrupted into thinking it's a bear, like that guy who was eaten by grizzlies.

[Iwannaplato]

No ad hom. I'm simply saying that I would expect those on a philosophy forum to be resistant to an idea which invalidates all philosophy.

Ad hom - to the man, rather than say, to the ideas, topic.

[Immanuel Can]

No ad hom. I'm simply saying that I would expect those on a philosophy forum to be resistant to an idea which invalidates all philosophy.

Ad hom - to the man, rather than say, to the ideas, topic.

He's got you there, TA. (He and I don't often agree, so this is one of the rare occasions on which I have to back him up. But to be fair, I do, here.)

To say, "I would expect that people on a philosophy forum would resist an idea that invalidates all philosophy" is not a way of proving the quality of your argument itself, but of trying to discredit the objectors for being philosophers.

That's a naughty tactic. What you'll find is that we don't need to resort to ad homs in order to distract from a well-formed argument. And they're always irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the view being expressed.

[Lacewing]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

I agree.

I think it points to a way of seeing beyond (and without) the restraints of conventional thinking.

I think it points to tapping into a clearer form of awareness that (in some ways) transcends traditional knowledge, reason, perception, and ego... and it may even be felt/sensed as a 'knowing' beyond human language and concepts. If we try to define it in detail, we create something else.

[Age]

Is there a way to 'think' without words, or language?

If yes, then how, exactly?

Yes. Thinking with words is totally exclusive from cognition, deduction, and understanding.

IF there IS A WAY to 'think' WITHOUT words, or language, then will you TELL us HOW this can be done, EXACTLY?

Now, HOW can 'things' be understood, deducted, and/or cognized WITHOUT words, nor language?

If you want to come here and make CLAIMS, then I suggest you have the ACTUAL PROOF that backs up and supports YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make YOUR CLAIMS public here.

So, HOW, EXACTLY, is 'thinking with words' EXCLUSIVE FROM 'cognition', 'deduction', and 'understanding'?

HOW do you, for example, 'understand' WITHOUT words, nor language?

At least, as far as interpreting our perceptions goes.

So, HOW, EXACTLY, do you or does one 'interpret' 'their perception' WITHOUT words, nor language?

And when it comes to being 'alive'/responsive/perceptive, the inner-monologue does nothing but debilitate.

But, LOL, what happens when the 'inner-monologue' is expressing the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE view of 'things' EXACTLY how they ARE?

For every bit of focus aimed behind the eyes (at the inner-monologue/reasoning process), it is taken from what is in front of the eyes.

And, what is necessarily Wrong with this?

Are 'you', as an adult for example, able to sit, or rest, in PERFECT SILENCE, without words nor language, and OBSERVE what is in FRONT of 'you'?

If yes, then for how long?

And, if yes, then what is the actual purpose of doing so?

But I used those provided symbols, words, and/or language to work out what the Universe actually is and how the Universe actually works.

I do NOT use those symbols to create 'a reason'; 'a philosophy'; 'a doctrine', nor 'a purpose', neither.

A symbolic representation of it, sure. However what if reality or "how the universe works" is beyond our comprehension, and therefore beyond our language?

BUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY works, and what the Universe ACTUALLY IS, is NOT beyond our comprehension AT ALL.

Also, it is THROUGH words AND language how ALL 'things' come to be KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, and COMPREHENDED.

Aren't we then deluding ourselves with the word-equations we come up with to describe it?

IF the words, or language, that you are USING is NOT aligned with what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and you are BELIEVING your OWN words, or language, as being true, then you are, OBVIOUSLY, deluding "yourself".

Also, are you NOT deluding "yourself", or are you deluding "yourself", here with what you are SAYING and CLAIMING above?

you have ALREADY BEEN SHOWN and TOLD, EXACTLY, HOW you have been DELUDING "yourself", by some of us. Did you take 'this' ON, or just REJECTED what has been POINTED OUT and SHOWN, to you?

But, not necessarily so. And, only if one 'thinks' this way.

Necessarily. The word for 'turtle' is not a turtle.

Great observation and deduction.

Now besides this being BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, what is the ACTUAL POINT of relaying 'this message', through words, and language, to us here?

Even a graphical drawing/symbol of a turtle, is not a turtle.

So, if you KNOW what is NOT 'a turtle', then what IS 'a turtle', EXACTLY?

See, in other words, if you KNOW what 'a turtle' is NOT, then this would infer that you KNOW, ALREADY, what 'a turtle' IS, EXACTLY.

So, what IS 'a turtle' if 'it' is NOT the 'symbols' that 'you', human beings, USE?

Can you ever capture all that a turtle is, with your symbols?

A better question, which I think is FAR MORE RELEVANT, IS, 'Would you EVER REALLY want to 'capture' ALL that 'a turtle' IS, ANYWAY?'

If your answer is, 'Yes', THEN you WILL keep 'trying to'.

Until then A 'perception' of what 'a turtle' IS, EXACTLY, will suffice.

Can you capture all that you are, with symbols?

YES.

Your full, living, dynamic reality?

That would all depend on whether you are TALKING ABOUT those 'things' that can NOT be expressed NOR explained with 'words', and, if you are, then what are those 'things' that can NOT, supposedly, be expressed NOR explained WITH 'words'?

Yes, if, and when, you found the Right words.

How do you think you conveyed, to us, the 'reality', (or, more correctly, your BELIEF), that one can NOT convey the actual reality of 'it', that is; 'the sky is blue'?

If you could convey 'this' 'reality', with the Right words, then you CAN also convey the 'reality' of other 'things', with the Right words, as well.

Impossible.

Okay, so what we have here is the human being who goes by the name and label "truthagenda" here BELIEVES that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to convey the 'reality of things' WITH 'words'.

Which would ACTUALLY MEAN that EVERY thing 'it' conveys, WITH 'words', is NOT the ACTUAL 'reality of things', correct?

You will never convey the reality of sight with mere words. I wager that reality is beyond what our words can possibly capture.

Which, ESSENTIALLY MEANS that EVERY 'thing' you SAY is NOT the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Which therefore MEANS the OPPOSITE of what you SAY could be the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' INSTEAD.

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying for a while here now.

It is the younger of the human being species who can SEE the MOST, that is; SEE the MOST of what IS ACTUALLY True and Right, in Life. And, this is because their 'observations' are NOT DISTORTED by ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS like 'your', adult, observations ARE.

They see the most, because they are still seeing with their eyes.

There are FIVE senses, and NOT just the one of sight, from which the human beings OBSERVES, SEES and UNDERSTANDS, the 'things' around 'it' FROM.

The longer one has an inner-monologue, the more it divides the mind with abstract and illusory concepts and divisions.

The so-called 'inner-monologue' is, ESSENTIALLY, made up of 'thought', which IS comprised of WORDS, and/or LANGUAGE, which ARISES, Naturally, and GROWS, as the human being GROWS.

And, it is THROUGH WORDS and LANGUAGE human beings COME to UNDERSTAND 'the world', the Universe, AND the 'things' around them.

The less focus one has for the senses. This is also why younger people are better able to deal with trauma. Much trauma, and things like depression, come from that state of dwelling in the mind, within the words we speak to ourselves and those which cycle ad-infinitum.

you have USED the 'mind' word here a couple of times now, so what IS this 'mind' 'thing', EXACTLY?

You can re-experience that child-like power of perception simply by ridding the mind of the inner monologue.

There is NO 'inner-monologue' in the 'Mind'. But, then this all depends on by what you MEAN, EXACTLY, with your USE of the words 'inner-monologue'. And, what, EXACTLY, comes from the 'Mind' should NEVER be gotten 'rid of'.

What NEEDS to be gotten RID OF, that is; IF one wants to live in a Truly BETTER 'world', are those False, Wrong, Incorrect, and DISTORTED 'thoughts' and 'thinking', which exist WITHIN ALL of 'you', adult human beings.

This sounds like some kind of BELIEF of yours here, which you are 'trying to' convey to us.

I wouldn't be so foolish to assert a belief like this. I'm speaking from lived experience.

But which you can NOT capture, NOR express, in and with symbols and words, correct?

Also, your 'lived experiences' have been and are being DISTORTED by the False, Wrong, AND Incorrect symbols, words, and language that you have ALREADY OBTAINED, and USE/D.

[Age]

"What is Enlightenment?" It is to shed superstition, dogmatism/religion, magical thinking and give wonder free range.

Is there ANY USE in 'wondering', and/or just 'being CURIOS', and 'contemplating', if one is NEVER coming to, finding, discovering, NOR uncovering what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, sometimes?

[Age]

It is the abandonment of reason.
..........

The difference between humans and an animal is the rational mind, i.e. the ability to reason.

Are you NOT YET AWARE that 'you', humans, ARE 'an animal'?

While the Latin term itself originates in scholasticism, it reflects the Aristotelian view of man as a creature distinguished by a rational principle.
In the Nicomachean Ethics I.13, Aristotle states that the human being has a rational principle (Greek: λόγον ἔχον), on top of the nutritive life shared with plants, and the instinctual life shared with other animals, i. e., the ability to carry out rationally formulated projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal#:~

However, the function of reason has many levels of competences, i.e. there is

1. Proto-reason
2. Primal, crude Pure Reason
3. Progressive logical thinking
4. Reasoning with wisdom

A person who has abandoned reason in general will be the mercy of his animal instincts.
Worst is when a person rely on crude reason exposed to the basic instincts, e.g. theists clinging to an illusory God.

Which is EXACTLY the SAME as "atheists" CLINGING TO and BELIEVING the illusion, 'There is NO God'.

Worst still when a person rely on slightly higher reason but is dominated by the basic instincts, e.g. the malignant psychopath who is basically very intelligent.

Enlightenment is one who has the competence to optimize his well being with intelligence, reasoning with wisdom, in complementarity with his inherent and necessary instincts & emotions.

This is like Aristotle's anger management;

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

But ONLY a FOOL becomes or bees 'angry'.

The WISE just RECOGNIZE and FEEL the 'anger' WITHIN, ALONE, WITHOUT becoming NOR being 'angry'.

An enlightened person is one who can apply the above principle optimally to all his human functions which is controllable by any human.
In this case, the person must have the corresponding neural states to exercise the above.

LOL you SAY, 'the corresponding neural states', as though there is some ACTUAL Truth to this and that 'you', human beings, are CONTROLLED by some 'thing' OTHER THAN what 'you' are ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY.

[Age]

Thinking with words, reduces one's cognition profoundly,

Well, let's take another tack. Then we should be like other primates who don't think in words?

The CONTRADICTION, HYPOCRISY, and STUPIDITY of CLAIMING, by SPEAKING or WRITING IN and WITH 'words', that 'words reduce one's cognition', literally, 'speaks for itself'.