Philosophy Now Forum

marjoram_blues wrote:JS: One word of advice: don't rely so much on words and concepts and definitions so much as your own personal first-hand experience. Next time you are bonkers-bored, see if it fits the description, and same with serenity.



Without words, concepts and shared definitions, how can we effectively discuss our personal first-hand experiences or knowledge about how life works for us.
I don't need to be 'bored' to see if it fits in with the quote, I already know the feeling as well as the definition. It is not an either/or but a combination of both.
I disagree with the quote - see earlier post.

First personal experience, then words and concepts. If you aren't even willing to try then you're no philosopher. There is no potential with a non-philosopher.

Jaded Sage wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:JS: One word of advice: don't rely so much on words and concepts and definitions so much as your own personal first-hand experience. Next time you are bonkers-bored, see if it fits the description, and same with serenity.



Without words, concepts and shared definitions, how can we effectively discuss our personal first-hand experiences or knowledge about how life works for us.
I don't need to be 'bored' to see if it fits in with the quote, I already know the feeling as well as the definition. It is not an either/or but a combination of both.
I disagree with the quote - see earlier post.

First personal experience, then words and concepts. If you aren't even willing to try then you're no philosopher. There is no potential with a non-philosopher.

I meant I don't need to wait until the 'next time' to be bored. I've already had that subjective experience which can then be discussed.
Philosophy is a process. Everyone has the capacity to make claims, attempt to justify them and listen carefully to questions/replies/objections. Why not try that, instead of 'hearing' what you want to. Then return the compliment by using the principle of charity and reply to the 'opponent' or opposing view.

You've a closed-mind, my friend. If it cannot be opened, best to stop philosophy now, or you might infect the others. How else will you learn anything new about what you already know?!

Jaded Sage wrote:You've a closed-mind, my friend. If it cannot be opened, best to stop philosophy now, or you might infect the others. How else will you learn anything new about what you already know?!

I know that you continue to show faulty judgement. But that might change.
Always open to further experiences or other's views which might result in some new insight.
Are you? Have you even listened yet...

i'll throw in another "definition" into the mix: 'substance'.

alpha wrote:i'll throw in another "definition" into the mix: 'substance'.

Why? What's the matter?

marjoram_blues wrote:

alpha wrote:i'll throw in another "definition" into the mix: 'substance'.

Why? What's the matter?

nothing's the matter. 'significance' was mentioned, as well as other words, and 'substance' came to mind.

HC, I hope you caught some of my scattered comments addressed to you in some of my posts. Your posts and challenges always get me thinking a bit more; I welcome this. I thought I'd better try to respond to our final exchange - as best I can. Here it is - for what it is worth.

MB: The focus now on an apparently 'good point': 'The only serene truth is to realise that every moment is meaningless'. This is a change of OP's initial claim re 'Serenity': 'Serenity is the feeling that nothing is a waste of time'.
Now you are saying that 'the only way we can talk about a serene feeling is to ask if it is a serene truth'.
Again, we are getting further away from the starting point: the definition of the concept of 'Serenity'.

HC: As you prefer:
Serenity is to realise that every moment is meaningless...[...]
Now tell me it makes a difference!

The difference was between 1. the half-quote 'Serenity is the feeling that nothing is a waste of time' and 2. the statement 'The only serene truth is to realise that every moment is meaningless. [...And time is not a quantity that has any value capable of being wasted. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on the earth. Your life means nothing and, each moment means less.]

The first is a Szasz-y soundbite - ( contrasting it with 'Boredom' - the feeling that everything is waste of time' ) This definition is open to interpretation and is not the final word on the subject of 'Serenity': the state of being serene. I happen to disagree with it.

The second is dogmatic. It is not about the concept or feeling of 'Serenity'. It talks about a certain or a serene 'truth' as a result of some 'realisation'. I disagree with this too. There is not one 'truth', serene or otherwise. There is not 'the only way we can talk about a serene feeling'.
Each one of us has our own 'truth' ( in accordance with our own reality/experience ) which can change, be uncertain and may or may not lead to 'Serenity'.

I accept that the topic of the meaningful/less-ness of life was carried on.
This is different from the personal valuing of own life, time or appreciation of every moment. Even those who think that Life as a whole is meaningless- without rhyme or reason - can place a value on their time. Each moment does not mean less.

alpha wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:

alpha wrote:i'll throw in another "definition" into the mix: 'substance'.

Why? What's the matter?

nothing's the matter. 'significance' was mentioned, as well as other words, and 'substance' came to mind.

The 'matter' is nothing. OK. Are we doing word association now?

marjoram_blues wrote:

alpha wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: Why? What's the matter?

nothing's the matter. 'significance' was mentioned, as well as other words, and 'substance' came to mind.

The 'matter' is nothing. OK. Are we doing word association now?

Word Association Football

Tonight's the night I shall be talking a bout of flu the subject
of word association football. This is a techn-eaking out a living
much used in the practice makes perfect of psychoanaly-sister
and brother and one that has occupied piped piper the majority rule
of my attention squad by the right number one two three four
the last five years to the memory. It is quite remark able baker
charlie how much the miller's son this so-called while you were
out word association immigrants' problems influences the manner
from heaven in which we sleekit cowering timrous beasties all-
American Speke, the famous explorer. And the really well that
is surprising partner in crime is that a Lot and his wife of
the lions' feeding time we may be c d e effectively quite
unaware of the fact or fiction section of the Watford Public
Library that we are even doing it is a far, far better thing
that I do now then, now then, what's going onward christian
Barnard the famous hearty part of the lettuce now praise famous
mental homes for loonies like me. So on the button, my
contention causing all the headaches, is that unless we take
into account of Monte Cristo in our thinking George the Fifth
this phenomenon the other hand we shall not be able satisFact
or Fiction section of the Watford Public Library againily to
understand to attention when I'm talking to you and stop
laughing, about human nature, man's psychological make-up some
story the wife'll believe and hence the very meaning of life
itselfish bastard, I'll kick him in the Balls Pond road.

marjoram_blues wrote:The second is dogmatic. It is not about the concept or feeling of 'Serenity'. It talks about a certain or a serene 'truth' as a result of some 'realisation'. I disagree with this too. There is not one 'truth', serene or otherwise. There is not 'the only way we can talk about a serene feeling'. Each one of us has our own 'truth' ( in accordance with our own reality/experience ) which can change, be uncertain and may or may not lead to 'Serenity'.

do you believe in relative truth, mb? if i believe it's daytime, and my neighbor believes it's nighttime, we're both right in some way?

alpha wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:The second is dogmatic. It is not about the concept or feeling of 'Serenity'. It talks about a certain or a serene 'truth' as a result of some 'realisation'. I disagree with this too. There is not one 'truth', serene or otherwise. There is not 'the only way we can talk about a serene feeling'. Each one of us has our own 'truth' ( in accordance with our own reality/experience ) which can change, be uncertain and may or may not lead to 'Serenity'.

do you believe in relative truth, mb? if i believe it's daytime, and my neighbor believes it's nighttime, we're both right in some way?

That is a childish caricature of relative truth.

Fact is that two people can know that and they both can be right

You're captain for this ship now, mb. I'm not sure I can make anything productive of these scally-wags. Arg!

We were so close to actual philosophy!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

alpha wrote:do you believe in relative truth, mb? if i believe it's daytime, and my neighbor believes it's nighttime, we're both right in some way?

That is a childish caricature of relative truth.

Fact is that two people can know that and they both can be right

either that is not in english, or i'm just too "childish" to make any sense of it.

alpha wrote:@ spheres;

"unmoved mover" is what aristotle calls the first -cause- in the line of instrumental causes, in the causal chain. you may call it a deity, or god, or....

of course this first cause must be eternal (infinitely old) to avoid infinite regress.

Thanks for the refresher, It's been a long time, and I'm getting much older, more so than my actual years, relatively speaking of course.

The reason that we speak seemingly different languages, is probably due to the differences in our concepts, of the truth of both life and the human condition. Each human often leaves traces of those concepts unmentioned in their dialog, believing they go without saying, that everyone is surely aware of them, not understanding that another has a totally different set, in which they feel the same way. That's why you have a hard time understanding how my dialog has anything to do with what you're saying. It's neither you nor I that is the problem, yet it's our dialects, if you will, that is. It's often either about age, I'm 58, or it's to do with environment, the differences between that which we have had exposure; knowledge and beliefs. I have seen it many many times in my years. Often I have noticed that people can actually be saying the 'exact' same thing, believing they are 180 degrees in opposition, simply because they are phrasing things in entirely different ways. This is one of the reasons one should always be respectful of another's dialog, as it can always be simply a matter of misunderstanding on both parties parts.

I can see one thing for certain in you responses. You are very even keeled when it comes to your tolerance of others, because I know I can come off as somewhat abrasive, when in fact it's only the way I express the degree of certainty in those unmentioned concepts, that I've eluded to above. I'm definitely not, "run of the mill." You?

Peace, my friend!