Philosophy Now Forum

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:15 pm I’m going to use your word “mind-projection” as the beginning of my explanation of the difference between Plato and Kant.

Before you even jump into any such explanation, you should really ask "are the differences significant enough to ignore the similarities?"

I have arrived at a point in my life where I see that the semantics are the same, even if the grammar/vocabulary is different.
I see most philosophers agreeing in spirit, but disagreeing in practice.

Alas, agreement amongst philosophers is like hell freezing over.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:15 pm “Apollonian form was derived from Egypt but perfected in Greece. Coleridge says, “The Greeks idolized the finite,” while Northern Europeans have “a tendency to the infinite.”

Sure. I am an ultrafinitist. Infinity does not exist - this is an epistemic claim. Humans have finite memory and finite time. Comprehending infinity is impossible.

If ontology (reality, existence, being) is infinite, humans are epistemically screwed - understanding/knowledge is impossible.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:15 pm The Greeks were, in my phrase, visionary materialists.

Behind all the colourful re-descriptions it remains structurally relevant that materialism is finitism. That which we are capable of understanding is finite.

If reality is infinite, then it's not material - it's not anything that we can comprehend.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:15 pm “The whole tendency of Greek philosophy after Plato,” remarks Gilbert Murray, “was away from the outer world towards the world of the soul.”

Nothing new here. Mathematics is an introspective discipline - to this day most mathematicians are Platonists.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:15 pm As you know the Romantic Age followed Kant. It was a time of the mysterious inner world of the Noumena. Woman ruled Nature. She was dark and hidden. The Light of Apollonian Athens gave way to the twilight of the North. The main difference between Plato and Kant is the difference between the Beautiful Boy of Classical Greece and the languid Female Goddess of Romanticism. External vs. Internal. The visible vs. the unseen. Phenomena vs. noumena. The Supernatural vs. Nature. In Kant’s Romanticism it is Nature that rules.

I was never a fan of dichotomies. As I pointed out from your opening paragraph, you biased yourself towards "differences" and so you ignored similarities.

So you have narrated it as Plato vs Kant, rather than two sides of the same coin.

I lean towards holism. Plato and Kant were far more similar than they were different.
I believe this to be true for any two philosophers you pick out at random - what divides them is their use of language, not semantics.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:15 pm Everything outer is a projection of the inner world of man as nature. Thus your idea of mind-projection. Nature gives birth to the gods in your philosophy. That is High Romanticism.

You have interpreted it as High Romanticism (Kantianism), but you could've just as easily gone the other way and interpret it as Platonism.

Nature gives birth to the gods - we are the Gods. Or at least we are born with the potential to become Gods.

Towards the pursuit of self-deification we need an archetype, a Platonic form, an ideal God. We must have a vision of that which we are trying to become. Nietzche's Übermensch is Plato's God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:29 am Yes Kant's Transcendental Idealism is different from Platonism.
Note Kant's critique of Plato in the above post.

Have you ever heard a Philosopher say "What I am saying is basically the same as this other guy who came 2000 years before me."

I haven't. Every philosopher thinks their work is unique. It's your job to figure out why that's usually false.

So rather than building upon each other's work (like scientists) dumb philosophers spend their time arguing with each other over narratives.

I keep referring to Aumann's agreement theorem. If two Philosophers can't agree - then they can't possibly be rational.

Why then is disagreement so prevalent amongst those who call themselves "rational"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:29 am Yes Kant's Transcendental Idealism is different from Platonism.
Note Kant's critique of Plato in the above post.

Have you ever heard a Philosopher say "What I am saying is basically the same as this other guy who came 2000 years before me."

I haven't. Every philosopher thinks their work is unique. It's your job to figure out why that's usually false.

So rather than building upon each other's work (like scientists) dumb philosophers spend their time arguing with each other over narratives.

I keep referring to Aumann's agreement theorem. If two Philosophers can't agree - then they can't possibly be rational.

Why then is disagreement so prevalent amongst those who call themselves "rational"?

I personally argue philosophy because I love the argument. It is in my nature to attack. Verbal and intellectual aggression is fun. Your way of just getting along is not something I would like.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:29 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:29 am Yes Kant's Transcendental Idealism is different from Platonism.
Note Kant's critique of Plato in the above post.

Have you ever heard a Philosopher say "What I am saying is basically the same as this other guy who came 2000 years before me."

I haven't. Every philosopher thinks their work is unique. It's your job to figure out why that's usually false.

So rather than building upon each other's work (like scientists) dumb philosophers spend their time arguing with each other over narratives.

I keep referring to Aumann's agreement theorem. If two Philosophers can't agree - then they can't possibly be rational.

Why then is disagreement so prevalent amongst those who call themselves "rational"?

I personally argue philosophy because I love the argument. It is in my nature to attack. Verbal and intellectual aggression is fun. Your way of just getting along is not something I would like.

You really missed the point and the truth of the agreement theorem. Disagreement is the road to consensus. It's fine to disagree but the end goal, your intent in participating in argument ought to be agreement. Finding common ground - identifying and resolving conflicts.

If you don't know how to work towards agreement then you can't call yourself rational. If you don't want to work towards consensus then you are flat out immoral. That is why I consider Philosophy (and its knack for disagreement) to be deeply immoral and one-sided. It takes game theory and teaches only non-cooperative gameplay, where cooperative strategies also exist.

Philosophy encourages interactions grounded in a Prisoner's dilemma

It doesn't mean that we need to live in utopia where "everybody just gets along". It simply means that I much prefer to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. I don't need to be "intellectually aggressive" when I am actually aggressive. It's in your best interest to reason with me, not mine. Reason is compromise - I can just take what I want.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:36 pm
You really missed the point and the truth of the agreement theorem. Disagreement is the road to consensus. It's fine to disagree but the end goal, your intent in participating in argument ought to be agreement. Finding common ground - identifying and resolving conflicts.

If you don't know how to work towards agreement then you can't call yourself rational. If you don't want to work towards consensus then you are flat out immoral. That is why I consider Philosophy (and its knack for disagreement) to be deeply immoral and one-sided.

Yes Yes Yes, I am most definitely NOT rational. I have argued against rationalists and rationalism for a long time. And I am not moral. I am an immoralist. The book The Immoralist by Andre Gide is one of my favorite books. And I, as a theist, often quote the saying ""Any god who isn't immoral is no god". I know that today people equate philosophy with ethics and morality and most would-be philosophers pride themselves on being rationalists, but not I. I do no go with the flow of what is considered intellectually proper.

I live in Nepal and India. Protestant missionaries came here during the Raj and they were scandalized by the uncleanliness and the dirty sexuality in Hindu ritual. Today young Westerners come here with their Science also trying to clean up this place and make it moral and rational. Those missionaries and these science-minded young people are one and the same. Cleanliness is the highest value in the West and they want to teach it to the heathen. You are of that sort.

I do metaphysics. It is a most unclean intellectual practice. It is religion. It is sexuality. It is mad. Those who preach against metaphysics, it seems to me, have a Freudian anal complex and they are constantly trying to wipe away the shit of religion. They cannot talk about sex except in clinical terms. They are the descendants of those missionaries who want so mush to "help" the poor pagan lost souls here wandering in filth, immorality and superstition.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm Yes Yes Yes, I am most definitely NOT rational. I have argued against rationalists and rationalism for a long time. And I am not moral. I am an immoralist.

Is immoralism to amoralism the same thing as ignosticism to agnosticism?

e.g The question of the existence of God (morality) is meaningless because the word "God" (morality) has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm The book The Immoralist by Andre Gide is one of my favorite books. And I, as a theist, often quote the saying ""Any god who isn't immoral is no god". I know that today people equate philosophy with ethics and morality and most would-be philosophers pride themselves on being rationalists, but not I. I do no go with the flow of what is considered intellectually proper.

Intellectuals usually over-value intellectuality. Some of the smartest people I know are not intellectuals, and some of the dumbest people I know are.

Intellectualism is just another circle-jerk.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm I live in Nepal and India. Protestant missionaries came here during the Raj and they were scandalized by the uncleanliness and the dirty sexuality in Hindu ritual. Today young Westerners come here with their Science also trying to clean up this place and make it moral and rational. Those missionaries and these science-minded young people are one and the same. Cleanliness is the highest value in the West and they want to teach it to the heathen. You are of that sort.

Isn't that the way of all prosletysm? My way is better than your way.

I don't particularly care to teach the heathens cleanliness, but I've had the Deli Belly more than once and it almost killed me. Towards not having to endure that shit (literally) it would be beneficial to me if some sort of sanitation norms existed

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm I do metaphysics. It is a most unclean intellectual practice.

Or the most pure. As far as I am concerned metaphysics is the first and only science.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm It is religion. It is sexuality. It is mad. Those who preach against metaphysics, it seems to me, have a Freudian anal complex and they are constantly trying to wipe away the shit of religion. They cannot talk about sex except in clinical terms. They are the descendants of those missionaries who want so mush to "help" the poor pagan lost souls here wandering in filth, immorality and superstition.

Well, it is only you who equates sex with immorality.

I consider myself tolerant in such regards. I know what goes on in the Ashrams in Pune. First hand.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:34 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm Yes Yes Yes, I am most definitely NOT rational. I have argued against rationalists and rationalism for a long time. And I am not moral. I am an immoralist.

Is immoralism to amoralism the same thing as ignosticism to agnosticism?

e.g The question of the existence of God (morality) is meaningless because the word "God" (morality) has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm The book The Immoralist by Andre Gide is one of my favorite books. And I, as a theist, often quote the saying ""Any god who isn't immoral is no god". I know that today people equate philosophy with ethics and morality and most would-be philosophers pride themselves on being rationalists, but not I. I do no go with the flow of what is considered intellectually proper.

Intellectuals usually over-value intellectuality. Some of the smartest people I know are not intellectuals, and some of the dumbest people I know are.

Intellectualism is just another circle-jerk.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm I live in Nepal and India. Protestant missionaries came here during the Raj and they were scandalized by the uncleanliness and the dirty sexuality in Hindu ritual. Today young Westerners come here with their Science also trying to clean up this place and make it moral and rational. Those missionaries and these science-minded young people are one and the same. Cleanliness is the highest value in the West and they want to teach it to the heathen. You are of that sort.

Isn't that the way of all prosletysm? My way is better than your way.

I don't particularly care to teach the heathens cleanliness, but I've had the Deli Belly more than once and it almost killed me. Towards not having to endure that shit (literally) it would be beneficial to me if some sort of sanitation norms existed

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm I do metaphysics. It is a most unclean intellectual practice.

Or the most pure. As far as I am concerned metaphysics is the first and only science.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:28 pm It is religion. It is sexuality. It is mad. Those who preach against metaphysics, it seems to me, have a Freudian anal complex and they are constantly trying to wipe away the shit of religion. They cannot talk about sex except in clinical terms. They are the descendants of those missionaries who want so mush to "help" the poor pagan lost souls here wandering in filth, immorality and superstition.

Well, it is only you who equates sex with immorality.

I consider myself tolerant in such regards. I know what goes on in the Ashrams in Pune. First hand.

Thanks for the pleasant reply. I was expecting another New Age idiot. Immoralism is different from amoralism. From the book The Immoralist I take the definition of immoralist to be one who doesn't take care of his property. He becomes obsessed (possessed) with some mesmerizing thing. In that book Michel is sexually obsessed with the boys of the North African desert. He can think of nothing else. As a result his personal affairs and his wife are totally ignored. They fall into ruin and she dies. Actually he doesn't have sex with the boys; he only stares at them in spiritual paralysis. He can't free himself from what has happened to him. I also am possessed by metaphysics and the Boy. That is also how I interpret Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. He was mesmerized by the boys of Taormina, much as was Gloeden. It is the basis of my Christianity. Jesus the curly-headed twink. Just why people like you equate God with morality is a mystery to me. Here, I am Gary Louis Smith https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gary+smith+g ... nb_sb_noss

I'm wondering if you know what it means to be obsessed/possessed by something or someone. I am possessed by the metaphysical Boy, aka Jesus. As for Osho and Pune, I rather like Shiela, his erstwhile assistant, but Osho, I think, is a homophobic idiot.

Do you know Sarah Caldwell 0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c42qf5rhtq4ng ... h.pdf?dl=0

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:36 am
All mental activities are conveniently traced to the "mind" which is not a thing.

Thinking is a mental activity.
Being emotional is a mental activity.
Certain instinctual thoughts are mental activities.
Being psychosomatic is a mental problem.
All sort of mental illness results from mental activities.

Let's say I have the thought 'I forgot my car keys' or 'The sun is 93 million miles from the earth" or 'My foot hurts' or 'Jack said he would come at three o'clock' or 'I should have put more salt in this soup' or 'When I was a child I had a red wagon' What is that thought that I have expressed in English? What is the connection between the thought and the English expression?

One basic element that connect thought, language to a given thing is "concept' which is within an "intertwined-reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
The whole thing is part of a complicated evolutionary process.

Here is food for thought;

• The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-genome/

• When a chimp happened to kick a stone, it likely what is triggered [feeling of and attention to the pain, etc.] within the chimp's body and brain is 99% the same with a human being.

Since they are 99% similar, surely there would be some kind of neural process that is similar to 'thought' as in humans.
Ask yourself, why humans would probably exclaimed 'My toe hurts' and the chimp would not doing the same?

Generally we associate 'mind' with humans but 'brain' with non-humans.
If chimps 99% similar to humans surely they have something like a 99% mind of humans?

If you reflect on the above, you will get a clue to your questions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:29 am Yes Kant's Transcendental Idealism is different from Platonism.
Note Kant's critique of Plato in the above post.

Have you ever heard a Philosopher say "What I am saying is basically the same as this other guy who came 2000 years before me."

I haven't. Every philosopher thinks their work is unique. It's your job to figure out why that's usually false.

So rather than building upon each other's work (like scientists) dumb philosophers spend their time arguing with each other over narratives.

I keep referring to Aumann's agreement theorem. If two Philosophers can't agree - then they can't possibly be rational.

Why then is disagreement so prevalent amongst those who call themselves "rational"?

Skepdick wrote:It simply means that I much prefer to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:29 pmI personally argue philosophy because I love the argument. It is in my nature to attack. Verbal and intellectual aggression is fun. Your way of just getting along is not something I would like.

Now you'll will understand I rarely [once in a blue moon] respond to Skepdick's posts.
Skepdick is a psychopath and he would not hesitate to kill you or anyone with his Glock over a disagreement [philosophical and others].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:27 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:36 am
All mental activities are conveniently traced to the "mind" which is not a thing.

Thinking is a mental activity.
Being emotional is a mental activity.
Certain instinctual thoughts are mental activities.
Being psychosomatic is a mental problem.
All sort of mental illness results from mental activities.

Let's say I have the thought 'I forgot my car keys' or 'The sun is 93 million miles from the earth" or 'My foot hurts' or 'Jack said he would come at three o'clock' or 'I should have put more salt in this soup' or 'When I was a child I had a red wagon' What is that thought that I have expressed in English? What is the connection between the thought and the English expression?

One basic element that connect thought, language to a given thing is "concept' which is within an "intertwined-reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
The whole thing is part of a complicated evolutionary process.

Here is food for thought;

• The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-genome/

• When a chimp happened to kick a stone, it likely what is triggered [feeling of and attention to the pain, etc.] within the chimp's body and brain is 99% the same with a human being.

Since they are 99% similar, surely there would be some kind of neural process that is similar to 'thought' as in humans.
Ask yourself, why humans would probably exclaimed 'My toe hurts' and the chimp would not doing the same?

Generally we associate 'mind' with humans but 'brain' with non-humans.
If chimps 99% similar to humans surely they have something like a 99% mind of humans?

If you reflect on the above, you will get a clue to your questions.

You are obviously a materialist and why you deny that is a mystery to me.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:33 am
Now you'll will understand I rarely [once in a blue moon] respond to Skepdick's posts.
Skepdick is a psychopath and he would not hesitate to kill you or anyone with his Glock over a disagreement [philosophical and others].

LOL It's a good thing we are all on lockdown because of much milder virus. Actually, words are, as William Burroughs said, also a virus. Do you think I should use some black magic I can get from my Tantric friends to stop that Glock from working? That would be easy enough. Actually, I like the game of spirits fighting spirits. I am well prepared. Oh my, look at this - https://kathmandupost.com/gandaki-provi ... l-covid-19

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:27 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:50 am

Let's say I have the thought 'I forgot my car keys' or 'The sun is 93 million miles from the earth" or 'My foot hurts' or 'Jack said he would come at three o'clock' or 'I should have put more salt in this soup' or 'When I was a child I had a red wagon' What is that thought that I have expressed in English? What is the connection between the thought and the English expression?

One basic element that connect thought, language to a given thing is "concept' which is within an "intertwined-reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
The whole thing is part of a complicated evolutionary process.

Here is food for thought;

• The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... he-genome/

• When a chimp happened to kick a stone, it likely what is triggered [feeling of and attention to the pain, etc.] within the chimp's body and brain is 99% the same with a human being.

Since they are 99% similar, surely there would be some kind of neural process that is similar to 'thought' as in humans.
Ask yourself, why humans would probably exclaimed 'My toe hurts' and the chimp would not doing the same?

Generally we associate 'mind' with humans but 'brain' with non-humans.
If chimps 99% similar to humans surely they have something like a 99% mind of humans?

If you reflect on the above, you will get a clue to your questions.

You are obviously a materialist and why you deny that is a mystery to me.

I have already stated I am not into the ideology of materialism.
Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
As I had stated, what is critical are the arguments I presented as to whether they are sound and not false.
The onus is for you to prove they are false if you think they are false.

What I am is, I am into the micros and the macros at the same time and deliberate on both holistically.
I would not missed the forest from the trees.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:33 am
Now you'll will understand I rarely [once in a blue moon] respond to Skepdick's posts.
Skepdick is a psychopath and he would not hesitate to kill you or anyone with his Glock over a disagreement [philosophical and others].

LOL It's a good thing we are all on lockdown because of much milder virus. Actually, words are, as William Burroughs said, also a virus. Do you think I should use some black magic I can get from my Tantric friends to stop that Glock from working? That would be easy enough. Actually, I like the game of spirits fighting spirits. I am well prepared. Oh my, look at this - https://kathmandupost.com/gandaki-provi ... l-covid-19

You can try but don't gather in a group.
You can do it separately in an online internet coven together over Skype or What's Apps.

Words when consolidated a meme can be a very virulent virus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:45 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:33 am
Now you'll will understand I rarely [once in a blue moon] respond to Skepdick's posts.
Skepdick is a psychopath and he would not hesitate to kill you or anyone with his Glock over a disagreement [philosophical and others].

LOL It's a good thing we are all on lockdown because of much milder virus. Actually, words are, as William Burroughs said, also a virus. Do you think I should use some black magic I can get from my Tantric friends to stop that Glock from working? That would be easy enough. Actually, I like the game of spirits fighting spirits. I am well prepared. Oh my, look at this - https://kathmandupost.com/gandaki-provi ... l-covid-19

You can try but don't gather in a group.
You can do it separately in an online internet coven together over Skype or What's Apps.

Words when consolidated a meme can be a very virulent virus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

I'm not a group person. Anyway, Skepdick is not a real problem for me. I don't think he is a psychopath. And I don't think he will use a Glock or even has one.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:45 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:52 am

LOL It's a good thing we are all on lockdown because of much milder virus. Actually, words are, as William Burroughs said, also a virus. Do you think I should use some black magic I can get from my Tantric friends to stop that Glock from working? That would be easy enough. Actually, I like the game of spirits fighting spirits. I am well prepared. Oh my, look at this - https://kathmandupost.com/gandaki-provi ... l-covid-19

You can try but don't gather in a group.
You can do it separately in an online internet coven together over Skype or What's Apps.

Words when consolidated a meme can be a very virulent virus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

I'm not a group person. Anyway, Skepdick is not a real problem for me. I don't think he is a psychopath. And I don't think he will use a Glock or even has one.

Ignorance is bliss.

To each, his own.