Philosophy Now Forum

ReliStuPhD wrote:

raw_thought wrote:I interpret "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art that) as you are Being rather then essence. Also I interpret "Brahman is Atman" as my individual consciousness (my consciousness, not what I am conscious of [essences] ) is the cosmic consciousness (God).

I think you and I are speaking of different "selves" then, but in a terminilogical sense rather than something more substantive. So, that having been said, I'll go ahead and assent to your particular explanation for the moment and then ask how it undermines the wager.


Greylorn, for his part, raw_thoughts has proved to be a good "opponent" (still not a fan of that term used in the context of a debate). As far as Hobbes goes, I couldn't agree with you more.

RSP,
You're a better man, then. "raw" reverts to mystical drivel too frequently for my taste. Perhaps he needs to slow cook on a back burner.
Greylorn

Mystical drivel?
READ MORE PHILOSOPHY. I am sure that you call phenomenology drivel.

raw_thought wrote:I am sure that you call phenomenology drivel.

Interestingly enough, within the field of Religious Studies, it's fallen on hard times. Certainly not drivel, but as far as a theory of religion, it's rather inadequate (though Eliade and Smart are still good reading, with good insights).

I am confused once again! So phenomenology (the idea that qualia,feelings exist) can not be true and one can still feel God's presence? In other words the mystics talk in phenomenological terms. So therefore they are idiots???
Greylorn rejected any phenomenological terms. That was his "reason" for rejecting mysticism.*
*
I am talking about mysticism (not in the new age way) but in the philosophical sense. For example, Meister Eckhart was not an idiot.

raw_thought wrote:I am confused once again! So phenomenology (the idea that qualia,feelings exist) can not be true and one can still feel God's presence? In other words the mystics talk in phenomenological terms. So therefore they are idiots???
Greylorn rejected any phenomenological terms. That was his "reason" for rejecting mysticism.*
*
I am talking about mysticism (not in the new age way) but in the philosophical sense. For example, Meister Eckhart was not an idiot.

In the study of religion, phenomenology has mostly come to mean the result of comparative analyses where what is common between religions is somehow taken to be "true." That is, when Christians and Muslims pray to God, that commonality is a sign of something "true," even if the individual systems are human. It has its uses, certainly, but tends to smooth over too many rough spots to be particularly useful as an explanatory model (e.g. the fact that Xian sees the Muslims praying to a fantasy, etc).

ReliStuPhD wrote:

raw_thought wrote:I am confused once again! So phenomenology (the idea that qualia,feelings exist) can not be true and one can still feel God's presence? In other words the mystics talk in phenomenological terms. So therefore they are idiots???
Greylorn rejected any phenomenological terms. That was his "reason" for rejecting mysticism.*
*
I am talking about mysticism (not in the new age way) but in the philosophical sense. For example, Meister Eckhart was not an idiot.

In the study of religion, phenomenology has mostly come to mean the result of comparative analyses where what is common between religions is somehow taken to be "true." That is, when Christians and Muslims pray to God, that commonality is a sign of something "true," even if the individual systems are human. It has its uses, certainly, but tends to smooth over too many rough spots to be particularly useful as an explanatory model (e.g. the fact that Xian sees the Muslims praying to a fantasy, etc).

Two idiots share a delusion is not a about what is "true".
They share the same species of delusion through social evolution.

raw_thought wrote:Mystical drivel?
READ MORE PHILOSOPHY. I am sure that you call phenomenology drivel.

No, I'd not call it drivel after looking up some insights into its nature, e.g: “A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus. In fact, it is not a doctrine, nor a philosophical school, but rather a style of thought, a method, an open and ever-renewed experience having different results, and this may disorient anyone wishing to define the meaning of phenomenology”.

Obviously, phenomenology has yet to rise to the level of drivel. You seem well qualified to further that goal.

Greylorn

Wow! Sartre, Hurssell, Chalmers, Searle...all tremble in the wake of your massive intellect. Those that are alive admit that they were full of drival. And those that are dead cry from their graves!
And to think you used a fallacy (ad hominum) to prove your point! Sheer genius!!!!!

Greylorn Ell wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Mystical drivel?
READ MORE PHILOSOPHY. I am sure that you call phenomenology drivel.

No, I'd not call it drivel after looking up some insights into its nature, e.g: “A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus. In fact, it is not a doctrine, nor a philosophical school, but rather a style of thought, a method, an open and ever-renewed experience having different results, and this may disorient anyone wishing to define the meaning of phenomenology”.

Obviously, phenomenology has yet to rise to the level of drivel. You seem well qualified to further that goal.

Greylorn

You've clearly not the slightest clue that phenomenology even refers to, let alone have any kind of understanding of it.

Phenomenology is the study of experiences without reference to a preconception in other words "bracketing."
I hope that cured your confusion as to what phenomenology is. I suggest a beginner philosophy class at university.
You really would benefit by at least a minimal understanding. For example,it is basic knowledge that Sartre etc co-opted many phenomenological ideas into their philosophies.

raw_thought wrote:Phenomenology is the study of experiences without reference to a preconception in other words "bracketing."
I hope that cured your confusion as to what phenomenology is. I suggest a beginner philosophy class at university.
You really would benefit by at least a minimal understanding. For example,it is basic knowledge that Sartre etc co-opted many phenomenological ideas into their philosophies.

QED my point above.

So you are saying that Sartre etc did not co-opt concepts from phenomenology?
"Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (French: L'Être et le néant : Essai d'ontologie phénoménologique), sometimes subtitled A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology"
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Nothingness
"The historical movement of phenomenology is the philosophical tradition launched in the first half of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, "
FROM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

raw_thought wrote:So you are saying that Sartre etc did not co-opt concepts from phenomenology?/

No. Existentialism is certainly the child of phenomenology. I'm suggesting that what you have so far expressed is a thin caricature.

The main reason for my objection is that I'm puzzled why you would counter RelStPhd, with any kind of argument that references phenomenology.
It's way above his head.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The main reason for my objection is that I'm puzzled why you would counter RelStPhd, with any kind of argument that references phenomenology.
It's way above his head.

And you were soooo close to presenting something that resembled an intelligent argument, but you didn't even realize who raw_thought was responding to. Heck, even my six y.o. knows enough to get names right. Back to the kids' table with you (but do keep trying).

Now, kids, play nicely!

ReliStuPhD and raw_thought, I for one am enjoying your discussion and I am glad you are both here. You raise the philosophical tone. Thank you!

May I suggest you try not to engage with Hobbes' Choice and Greylorn Ell at all? In my view each of them in their own way has proved themselves unwilling (due, I think, to incapacity) to respect and follow any argument that threatens their determined views. All you can expect from them in the end is mindless personal abuse.

If you have trouble ignoring their posts, remember the board's [Add foe] option. Just navigate to their profile page (there's a button to do this at the bottom of every post) and click the [Add foe] button on the left hand side. Then it's as if you had personally banned them from your forum.

Regards
Mick