Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:01 pm
That's not the case. Reality is not "constructed out of thoughts," solely or otherwise. Reality is what reality is. If one fails to respect reality, it no longer matters what one's "thoughts" are. If you "think" you can fly, and jump off a building, reality will instantly prove to you that your "thoughts" do not control reality.
Perfect state of uselessness. A confused person has no grasp of what's going on, and no understanding of what to do.
I didn’t say Reality is constructed out of thoughts. I said knowledge is constructed out of thoughts.
No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.
It’s ok to be confused.
It's okay for confused people and children. It's not okay for adults to remain confused, especially when they could know better.
I said it’s ok for people to be confused. I never implied to remain confused.
Confusion is a normal state for adults and children at least until a clarity overrides the confusion. No human is completely all knowledgable or should have known better. Humans can only know what they know, and never what they can never know.
I didn’t say Reality is constructed out of thoughts. I said knowledge is constructed out of thoughts.
No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.
It’s ok to be confused.
It's okay for confused people and children. It's not okay for adults to remain confused, especially when they could know better.
I said it’s ok for people to be confused. I never implied to remain confused.
Then we're not disagreeing. People feel confused for a second: fine. Then they bring reason to bear, and figure out why they're confused, and stop being confused.
But that's not what you were saying. You were saying confusion is a good state. It's not. It's something to be overcome if possible.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:49 pm
No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.
I said thoughts are constructed out of knowledge, I didn’t say out of nothing.
….you say, thought is produced when there is interaction of human cognition with reality which is knowledge.
…I say, for that to be known, then that knowing is what informs the human mind it is identical to reality. If the non physical mind is properly aligned with physical reality. Then all that informs is that the visible and the invisible realities are identical.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:49 pm
No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.
It's okay for confused people and children. It's not okay for adults to remain confused, especially when they could know better.
I said it’s ok for people to be confused. I never implied to remain confused.
Then we're not disagreeing. People feel confused for a second: fine. Then they bring reason to bear, and figure out why they're confused, and stop being confused.
But that's not what you were saying. You were saying confusion is a good state. It's not. It's something to be overcome if possible.
But don’t you see that in order for something to be overcome, for example a state of not knowing can only change into a state of clear clarity, because of a temporary confusion. Obviously the temporary confusion gives way when clarity dawns.
That’s why confusion has to be a useful state, else how is one able to distinguish between what is known and what is not known.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:49 pm
No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.
I said thoughts are constructed out of knowledge, I didn’t say out of nothing.
….you say, thought is produced when there is interaction of human cognition with reality which is knowledge.
…I say, for that to be known, then that knowing is what informs the human mind it is identical to reality. If the non physical mind is properly aligned with physical reality. Then all that informs is that the visible and the invisible realities are identical.
Is that what you mean?
Not quite. They can never be "identical." It's when the knowledge one has is maximally correspondent with reality. Nothing's perfect, and nothing has to be; but it has to be a very good fit.
"Feeling" is not necessarily correspondent to reality at all...as when a person "feels" she's being watched, but is not, or when one believes that there's a snake under one's bed in the dark...and again, there is no such reality.
Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:06 pm
...a state of not knowing can only change into a state of clear clarity, because of a temporary confusion. Obviously the temporary confusion gives way when clarity dawns.
I don't see that. Sometimes, maybe, confusion is a regrettable, intermediate stage. Sometimes, it's not. I have known many things without the expedient of feeling confused about them. That's what we mean when we say some things are "obvious": no confusion required.
I like philosophy. The real stuff involving epistemology and ontology and papers written by working philosophers who aren't famous and whose names can't be used to impress rubes.
You also “like” boy’s assholes, right?
No. Also I never wrote anything to imply that I do. You just can't read very well.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 4:25 pm
So the philosophical attempts to create a universal value evident since Plato and going on through Hegel is, has and will continue to be, a failure because there is no such rock upon which to build any type of universal, overall, fits-everyone -ism or ideology. We fruitlessly argue about these matters because there is no one size fits all -ism that will cover everyone.
All that applies within the borders of California, I grant you that. But when you leave that infernal territory things are different. Really!
We fruitlessly argue about these matters because there is no one size fits all -ism that will cover everyone.
Ok, Ok: then let’s get right to the business of massacre. Then those left can “construct agreements”.
Fair enough?
K: please give me a value/ism that is universal, applicable to everyone?
note, I said a value/ism.... keep that in mind....
FlashDangerpants:
But IWP was right, his stuff tends to be "Plato and Me", "Neitzsche and Me" or "Hegel and Me", not actually something about Kierkegaard himself, but always something about how Kierkegaard relates to Kropotkin.
K: as I have stated before, I don't hold to universal, overall, applicable
to everyone isms or ideologies..... thus the proper path of philosophy
is to connect prior philosophy with how it relates to me.... for I am the
subject of every post I make... just as you are the subject of every post you make....
its kinda what human beings do.... ''I hold that'' is basically the starting point
of every conversation ever...''I believe in''....is another starting point....
every human begins with ''how does it affect me''....
if you are so interested in Nietzsche, I suggest you read Nietzsche... don't ask
me what Nietzsche thought... it is far better that you get that information from
Nietzsche, not me...
FD: I like philosophy. The real stuff involving epistemology and ontology and papers written by working philosophers who aren't famous and whose names can't be used to impress rubes. Sometimes a little of that happens here. Currently I am reading a paper by Peter Railton of Ann Arbor (Uni of Michigan) becasue I found something that VA mentioned in another thread sort of intriguing.
K: REALLY, epistemology and ontology? Real philosophy? Epistemology and
ontology has nothing, and I mean nothing that even resemble a useful
idea for anyone..... there is a reason those two schools are deader
than Kant... they have nothing to offer anyone... there is nothing to
learn in either one.... you are a snob.. a philosophical snob...
that thinks these two schools have anything to offer anyone...
philosophy is about the human condition... there is nothing
in epistemology or ontology that tells us about the human condition.....
now knowing you, you will accuse me of knowing nothing...
ok, start a thread that bring us the human condition through either/or
epistemology or ontology? what is the Human condition as thought
of by epistemology or ontology?
FD: Kropotkin suffers from the firm belief that he must be special in some way, but the inability to locate any talent that supports his notion. What he really struggles against is that.
K: to be honest, I would be better served had I believed that I was special in
some way... it would make the philosophy work better.... one of the
things that happen as one gets old is the loss of ego...... plus I
have been married for 28 years Friday..... you don't last that long in
a marriage thinking you are special......
Note my starting point for virtually all of my philosophy....
Justice, equality... that everyone gets treated equally...
and I have never distanced myself from being treated equally.....
someone once asked me, how smart do I think I am? I replied,
I am top, 800 million smartest people on planet earth....
and to this day, I hold to that estimation... One of the 800 million
smartest people on planet earth... yep, that is how special I think
I am.... and you? Just how special are you?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:36 am
FlashDangerpants:
But IWP was right, his stuff tends to be "Plato and Me", "Neitzsche and Me" or "Hegel and Me", not actually something about Kierkegaard himself, but always something about how Kierkegaard relates to Kropotkin.
K: as I have stated before, I don't hold to universal, overall, applicable
to everyone isms or ideologies..... thus the proper path of philosophy
is to connect prior philosophy with how it relates to me.... for I am the
subject of every post I make...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:49 pm
No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.
I said thoughts are constructed out of knowledge, I didn’t say out of nothing.
….you say, thought is produced when there is interaction of human cognition with reality which is knowledge.
…I say, for that to be known, then that knowing is what informs the human mind it is identical to reality. If the non physical mind is properly aligned with physical reality. Then all that informs is that the visible and the invisible realities are identical.
Is that what you mean?
Not quite. They can never be "identical." It's when the knowledge one has is maximally correspondent with reality. Nothing's perfect, and nothing has to be; but it has to be a very good fit.
"Feeling" is not necessarily correspondent to reality at all...as when a person "feels" she's being watched, but is not, or when one believes that there's a snake under one's bed in the dark...and again, there is no such reality.
We can only work with the knowledge we already have. Some feelings, may not always align with reality, but then some feelings definitely do. Like when I feel hungry - I have thoughts about food etc...
I would still say.. It’s more about resonance between thought and feeling. I'm not sure thoughts and feelings are separate. The observer of reality and the observed reality must be identical when thought and feeling come into play. For example: the observer and the observed, or, the imageless and the image must be the same identical reality. Who is observing, perceiving it's own image? The world must reflect it's own image back onto itself. That's knowledge. That's the knowing.
Thoughts are cognitive processes involving perception and memory. Thoughts cause feelings just as much as feelings cause thoughts. It's a body and mind automatic feedback loop.
We can also change our thoughts, to change our feelings. We can stop the train of thought and lay down some new tracks for transversing the body and mind connection.
Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:06 pm
...a state of not knowing can only change into a state of clear clarity, because of a temporary confusion. Obviously the temporary confusion gives way when clarity dawns.
I don't see that. Sometimes, maybe, confusion is a regrettable, intermediate stage. Sometimes, it's not. I have known many things without the expedient of feeling confused about them. That's what we mean when we say some things are "obvious": no confusion required.
So what about knowing something like God - Has this knowing of God been obvious? or is this knowing just an emotion in you, is it something you want?
Is the knowing of God for you, just more about a resonance between thought and feeling, relative to what's actually wanted?
Some people could say I know God. But then other people would be confused about the idea of knowing their creator, and would opt the other way by saying something like, I don't know my creator. And nothing would change in reality. Reality would simply just be obviously as it actually is, it would not care about our thoughts and feelings about it. But then caring would also be reality, because of our conceptual knowledge. So reality both cares and does not care, and these would simply be an expression of thought and feeling, and maybe emotional experience. I do not think there is any more to it than that.
K: as I have stated before, I don't hold to universal, overall, applicable
to everyone isms or ideologies..... thus the proper path of philosophy
is to connect prior philosophy with how it relates to me.... for I am the
subject of every post I make... just as you are the subject of every post you make....
its kinda what human beings do.... ''I hold that'' is basically the starting point
of every conversation ever...''I believe in''....is another starting point....
every human begins with ''how does it affect me''....
That's not a universal attitude or behavior. And it doesn't apply to all areas that person might tackle.
A person can easily investigate how the ideas of Nietzsche, Plato or Hegel apply to everyone or to some specific group.
There is a difference between subjectivists and objectivists.
I'm certainly not the "subject of every post I make".
