Philosophy Now Forum

Mark Question wrote:and is the sophistication of the mind leading you to hell or heaven, in conservative christians model?

Hell.
When you see more you suffer more.

But if we put it in the context of my metaphysics we can say that life is an ordering, in reaction to entropy, and consciousness is a tool for ordering.
Therefore when a mind reaches a certain level of order it is logical to assume that it must maintain itself there, within the flow towards increasing entropy.

the more ordered a mind is the more it experiences the attrition of entropy...and so suffering increases exponentially.
The mind might go mad or reject any level of order that would expose it to more suffering.

The eastern philosophies actually urge the average man to deny ego, to focus on the moment, so as to reduce suffering.

Mark Question wrote:do they call gods ideas childish, without gods punishment, in their "world"?

Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.

Mark Question wrote:but is there your "world"?

No, there is reality and there is my interpretation of it.
If my interpretations are wrong, or to whatever degree that they are wrong, I will pay the price for it.

Mark Question wrote:do you have any own thoughts about world or anything?

the absolute can take on any label.
Here are some of the most common terms for the absent absolute: Something, Nothing, Thing, Here, Now, Self, One, Nil, Whole, Perfect, Complete and God.
World is another term for reality and universe.

Mark Question wrote:is there a dogmatic understanding and dogmatic limits of finding in dogmatic models?

Huh?


------------------
To the Douche-Bag who practices philosophy....meaning he speaks with the established language, and refers the the authorities...he thinks via anohter's perspective...it's not that he merely references others to support his own views, but he thinks through them....he adopts them as his own.
So when he speaks about philosophy, the love of wisdom, in reference to reality, what he means is that he prefers, because he can do nothing else, to speak about another's views of reality. He speaks of the world from a second-hand perspective: he speaks about philosophy or he speaks about another's views of the world...he never speaks about his own seeing....He never speaks about the world directly.
He speaks about another one speaking about the world.
This is institutionalization.

It is like a painter talknig about another's painting, but never painting himself...or painting while looking at another's painting, rather than outside his window.
This is called thinking through a proxy. It related to Baudrillard's work.
Life imitating art, rather than art imitating life, is what this is about. When the mind is cocooned within a box, an urban setting where nature is experienced through a medium or through human artifices like parks, it begins to disconnect from reality. Reality now comes to it via a proxy.
Another man's vision of nature, for example, becomes his only avenue to his own. He sees through another's eyes; thinks through another's thoughts; experiences through another man's experiences.
This is sheltering or it can be called institutionalization.

The little piece is indicative of the Douche-Bag's overall psychology.
He chose the one dealing with sex. Here, of course, I chose to be even more brief, given that I had already gone through this in my essay.
I added it as a connecting part, where my metaphysical views attach to my social and political views.

Nevertheless, in the thesis as I wrote it, I tried to deal with themes, each successive addition building upon the common one.
It is true that I could have added much more, but I chose not to, for two basic reasons:

1- I wanted to keep it brief, perhaps thinking that I might add to it on a later date, as I am adding to my essay The Feminization of Mankind presently.
The numerical succession points to an association.
Asa I mentioned, when the subject veered towards the social implications I remained even more terse because I had gone over this part in my essay The Feminization of Mankind and I didn't wish to redirect the essay away from its metaphysical focus.

2- I wanted to remain laconic, challenging the reader to follow my reasoning rather than having to spoon-feed him the details.
I did this to dissuade the retards from even commenting on it. I wasn't interested in reaching a vast audience since I was not interested in making money.

Satyr wrote:1- I wanted to keep it brief ...

2- I wanted to remain laconic ...

No offense but its hardly that.

Now Wittgensteins version was.

Wittgenstein passed over much of it in silence, princess.

One more for the Douche-Bag because fame matters to him:

Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote: • The works of really capable minds differ from the rest in their character of decisiveness and definiteness, together with the distinctness and clearness springing there from, since they at all times clearly and definitely knew what they wanted to express; it may have been in prose, verse, or tones. The rest lack this decisiveness and clearness; and in this respect they can be at once recognized.
The characteristic sign of all first-rate minds is the directness of all their judgments and opinions. All that they express and assert is the result of their own original thinking and everywhere proclaims itself as such even by the style of delivery....Therefore every genuine and original thinker is to this extent like a monarch; he is immediate and perceives no one who is his superior. Like the decrees of a monarch, his judgments spring from his own supreme power and come directly from himself.

• Scholars are those who have read in books, but thinkers, men of genius, world-enlighteners, and reformers of the human race are those who have read directly in the book of the world.

• Thus a man who thinks for himself only subsequently becomes acquainted with the authorities for his opinions when they serve merely to confirm him therein and to encourage him.
The book-philosopher, on the other hand, starts from those authorities in that he constructs for himself an entire system from the opinions of others which he has collected in the course of his reading.

• Those who have spent their lives reading and have drawn their wisdom from books resemble men who have acquired precise information about a country from many descriptions of travel. They are able to give much information about things, but at bottom they have really no coherent, clear, and thorough knowledge of the nature of the country.

In ancient Greece men gathered in the agora to share their views on the world.
They risked being wrong, they put themselves on the line every time they spoke about what they saw, using their own words, exposing the quality of their own minds through their opinions...they grew by challenging themselves.

The douche-bags of the world gather to share their opinions on other people's opinions, so as to never risk being exposed as the morons that they are. They remain loyal to the scripture, and they dedicate their lives not to seeing the world but to understanding how a few other famous men saw it.

This is why their words are passionless, cold, even if they are based on emotional thinking, primarily fear. they have nothing invested in the ideas, because they are not their own.
If one set of ideas are proven wrong then he jumps to the next, like a woman goes for the stronger male - falling out of love as quickly as she fell into it.

Is this all philosophy is? Would Nietzsche meet it? He's been acclaimed as one of the greats of philosophy.

As a discipline, it adheres to the rules of reasoning/classical logic, even when questioning those. For example, when looking at the rule of disjunction, Gettier found that there are some cases in which epistemic luck looks exactly like JTB, thereby placing that theory of knowledge in question by exposing the problems with the rule of disjunction. That's another thread in it's own right.

Regarding Nietzsche, I find that he, like most non-disciplined moral nihilists I've been fortunate enough to have come across, simultaneously deny and depend upon 'God' to ground their claims. In short, he could not quite escape the dead. Which, again, is another topic in it's own right. I would not call him disciplined, but rather, he used pathos quite well as a means of influence. Kinda like our insecure movie projector does. Although to Nietzsche's credit, I think that he was not being deliberately deceptive, unlike our local hero.

What do you mean by 'logical succession' first?

That each piece should be related or deducible or inferable from the former?

Again, following the rules of correct inference, no matter whether that be inductive or deductive.

In ancient Greece men gathered in the agora to share their views on the world. They risked being wrong, they put themselves on the line every time they spoke about what they saw, using their own words, exposing the quality of their own minds through their opinions...they grew by challenging themselves.

It takes more than one's own belief and/or justification to challenge oneself.

The douche-bags of the world gather to share their opinions on other people's opinions, so as to never risk being exposed as the morons that they are. They remain loyal to the scripture, and they dedicate their lives not to seeing the world but to understanding how a few other famous men saw it.

This is quite simply... false.

One can be exposed to being a moron, whether they are offering their interpretation of another's pov about the world, or whether they offer their own interpretation of the world.

This is why their words are passionless, cold, even if they are based on emotional thinking, primarily fear. they have nothing invested in the ideas, because they are not their own.

It does not follow from the fact that one's ideas are not their own that nothing is invested.

If one set of ideas are proven wrong then he jumps to the next

As if this is a fault? As if it is better to adhere to wrong ideas?

...like a woman goes for the stronger male - falling out of love as quickly as she fell into it.

Now I see... rationalization at work.

To all upon this thread.

Can I have a straw poll as to which category this thread could go? As I'd like to move it.

I guess Bill started it as a political point but it seems to have veered to what?

AMod

Psuedo...

creativesoul,

So metaphysics then?

Anyone concur?

AMod

well it is supposed to be about truth...

Metaphysics works fine for me.

Satyr wrote:No, there is reality and there is my interpretation of it.
If my interpretations are wrong, or to whatever degree that they are wrong, I will pay the price for it.

are you saying that there is a word "reality", and we can put it in the context of your model or others? and the evaluation or paying price can be done also, in those contexts?

Mark Question wrote:is there a dogmatic understanding and dogmatic limits of finding in dogmatic models?

Huh?

does dogmatic models have dogmatic contexts?

5.7.2.3.4.2 Here the promise of a hypothetical Idea(l)takes precedence over any individual considerations, because theindividual is always a failed attempt at it.
5.7.2.3.4.2.1 This is why a female’s attraction and orgasm isalways dependent on the male’s ability to represent, for her, the Idea(l)which she wishes to preserve by uniting it with herself – this Idea(l)being a product of her self-awareness and her self-esteem.

IFF her expectations are not met or exceeded.

6.3.1.1.2 The degree to which different abstractions can be harmoniously integrated within a single governing world view determines the degree to which the mind can understand its surroundings.

When we look at worldviews which hold that everything is either a product of good or of evil the above is found sorely lacking. Religious fanatics clearly show that one can harmoniously integrate all of their thought/belief into a single worldview, and that that does not constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for the mind to be able to accurately understand it's surroundings. Rather, the "degree" to which a mind can accurately understand it's surroundings is solely determined by how well thought/belief matches up to the way things are, not by the quantity of integrations.

creativesoul wrote:

6.3.1.1.2 The degree to which different abstractions can be harmoniously integrated within a single governing world view determines the degree to which the mind can understand its surroundings.

When we look at worldviews which hold that everything is either a product of good or of evil the above is found sorely lacking. Religious fanatics clearly show that one can harmoniously integrate all of their thought/belief into a single worldview, and that that does not constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for the mind to be able to accurately understand it's surroundings. Rather, the "degree" to which a mind can accurately understand it's surroundings is solely determined by how well thought/belief matches up to the way things are, not by the quantity of integrations.

sounds like both of you are hunting the same after all: the most accurate understanding of the world? sounds like theres still lots of integration to do between many different abstraction models or worldviews? how much integration different views can take, without loosing their differences? is it going to be heaven or hell if we start to think same way, same thoughts, same views? what will be philosophy then? if we share same thoughts and living styles and clothes and all? talking only about weather and sport news? sounds hell to me.

theres only one little bump on the road to that new autobahn of yours, leading to the new brave one-eyed world: in which worldview or abstraction model the judge sits judging, which is the most accurate worldview or abstraction model? should judges own view be also the most accurate? how can we know, without the most accurate view, who is the most accurate judge? do we also have to have the most accurate view? do we need that judge at all? what if all worldviews or abstraction models are the most accurate to them? what if they all have their own different explanations and views to these questions of mine?

.



I understand why you chose your moniker.

14 Question Marks out of 15 sentences.


That's a lot of Question Marks, Mark Question.


And I'm beginning to Question the structure of the one sentence you used that was not punctuated by a Question Mark...





.................................





.

Mark points toward the problem of epistemic regress. How do you know that you know.