Philosophy Now Forum

BB,

Barbara Brooks wrote:UK,
You say no the senses do not hinder the acquisition of knowledge?

Depends what you mean by 'hinder'? But in essence I think that the meta-representation that we call "knowledge" could not exist without senses so no senses do not hinder the acquisition of knowledge

The mind agrees to be active in some part of its body and this activity is brought on by means of the nerves. These nerves are branches of nerves associated to the single system, which is connected with the brain. The activity results from these nerves without the bodily system being involved.

What do you mean by the "mind agrees to be active in some part of its body"? I agree that the brain and nerves should be understood as one system but do not understand what you mean by "without the bodily system being involved"?

Thus, nerves can move particular parts of the body in a certain way by particular muscles connected with many other muscles by nerve-stems, without all the other muscles taking a part.

I don't really understand this as all the muscles are always 'taking a part' all the time. Are you talking about how mind interacts in moving meat?

Feeling is instinctual and centered in a state of tension in us with the outside world standing over against us. This is a contradiction, two ends, self and the world, mutually opposed. Thus, in face of the outer world individual’s feelings adapts a theoretical, practical, ideal and real purpose of living. For example the system of nerves, veins, blood, bones, muscles, skin, glands, are each an entire frame. The head, the brain, has internal organs of sensibility, bones, nerves; but also belongs to it all the parts of the other system, blood, veins, glands and skin. Similarly, the thorax has nerves, glands, and skin. Each system is dominated by the others with which it is interlaced and this gives interconnection to the organism and at the same time maintains within self the total connection.

Their connections are of particular parts of one system with particular parts of the same or another system or systems and in respect of their functions are linked together.

I agree, although I'm unsure about it being a 'dominating' relationship.

The ideal relationship of feeling and the immediate reflective physical approach to the outer world is a theoretical procedure, which self determines a logically particular way of distinguishing a relationship with the outer world.
What excites a particular emotion exists outside is the mechanical sphere of feeling bound together like a bouquet has power of fastening together several senses.

I think I agree.
a_uk

greetings bb, its b2b, just talked to R2D2, and C3PO says hi!:)

Kim,

Freedom of mind, all sensible beings aim at. The essential feature of the mind is freedom: i.e. self-identity. Consider, this freedom keeps self-affirmative in this negativity and still possess self-identity.

Thus, willpower is the kingdom of freedom. Willpower is a given nature as in want, appetite or impulse. Here is the pure thought of “I”, also the change from indefiniteness to a definite objective self, whether this is given by nature or produced out of the conception of strength of character the “I” becomes reality.

The sense organ is feeling such, as taste is the muscle of the tongue, which connects itself to the mouth. Or such the noise being the organ of smell is connected with the principle of air and breathing.

Willpower is belief, willpower’s distinctive form is consciousness, self-consciousness, purpose making willpower an actual determination.

Faith pervades and permeates willpower the whole self is the main point of importance; it is nothing else than actual faith of self at home in self-consciousness.

Faith is not a mere development runs a course as a distinct whole. Then, consciousness, self-consciousness, reason, and faith belong to willpower; they pervade and permeate all aspects of actual being, and this faith in every mind.

Belief a determinate character of self, where consciousness and self-consciousness come to terms. Belief is what makes purpose complete, that inner reality of self, not merely ideally or sense certainty of self, but self-distinguishing.

The mind independent, feels, perceives, reasons, wills and thinks a remarkable thing appears as self-conscious but is the unconscious mechanical sphere of feeling.

“Strength of mind in its totality” all at the same time, consciousness, self-consciousness, purpose and strength together pervades and permeates all aspects of actual being is reason. Mind collects all the moments into content, keeps them together, and moves within this total wealth of real actual spirit within self and receives them together in common a determinate character of self.

bus2bondi,

The starry heaven is understood not by sight but reason and intelligence. Astronomers they investigate only figures but they never reach the reflective harmonious oneness of the heaven.

Socrates believed the shining heavens should be used as a model and with a vision to higher knowledge and beauty in which we may chance to behold would appreciate that exquisite work, but the thought in the heavens we could find the truth.

I think that the creator frames the heaven and what is in it in the most perfect manner; the proportions of night and day to the month, or of the month to the year, and of the stars. The heaven give the season and the years, and the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things, which we have been accustomed to behold.


The spangled heavens, Socrates thought, should be used as a pattern and with a view to that higher knowledge; their beauty is like the beauty of figures or pictures excellently fashioned that we may chance to behold; a geometrician would appreciate the exquisiteness of true knowledge approached in a reasonable way

The underlining principle of knowledge is two ruling powers, one that is set over the intellectual world and the other over in the visible world. Just as a line that has been cut into two unequal parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion. One is visible and the other is intelligible.

In heaven Socrates believed there is laid up in the heaven a pattern of the best society and which those who desires it may behold, and in beholding, may set their house in order, but nevertheless a philosopher lives after that manner and has nothing to do with any other.

hi, i think i still might have some socrates, plato, pluto, mill and hume in my garage somewhere, you are tempting me to go get it all out....it is hard though, to go against an ingrained stubborness to not open my mind to anything other than that which has infinitly fell... but you keep showering down, so i think i might visit my garage later this week, thanks:)

i "think" there is something way out there past the 'mu.' full of extremely bright light and other radiant spectrums of colors. filled with other friends of higher wisdom, love, truth, knowledge, energy, and intelligence, (and higher knowledge of how to use it).

i also wonder if this could be emulated on earth too, or would it be a sham due to our imperfections?

Socrates believed God being everywhere and traverses the whole heaven appearing perfect and fully winged soars upward, and orders the whole world, whereas we humans lose our wings or droop in flight because of our ignorance.

The mind the greatest of God’s blessings, a thing, which is moved from without, is mindless; but that which is moved from within has a mind.



Knowledge to the rescue gives way before calculation, measure, and weight. In addition, this surely is the rational principle in the soul. The better part of human being is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculate.
The great elevating effect that compels the mind to reason about things is mathematics. It may truly be called necessary for the use of knowledge and truth. Mathematics is a kind of knowledge in which the best learners should be trained and which they must never give up. Second as necessary is geometry because it compels mind to view the vision of the idea of good, look at the full perfection of being and which everyone ought to behold, not in a narrow squaring, extending, and applying but with the mind for the sake of reason.

Mathematics are necessary in all arts and sciences and data, they are used in common; every one has to learn among the elements of education are numbers. Turn and gaze towards the full perfection and behold not in a narrow manner of squaring and extending and applying and the like, that narrow mindedness only confuses the necessities and fortuitous phenomenal of geometry.

Proof belongs to the process of mathematics through and through, excluding everything that is not conceptually grasped by the mind. Look how Parmenides demonstrated one and many, one cannot exist, for then absolute would be no longer one and that being is determined by a relation among those identical to their respective spheres.

All studies, mathematics, geometry, astronomy when they reach the point of inter-communion and connection with one another and come to be considered in their mutual affinities is the hymn of reason.

no offence against socrates whatsover, but how many other billions upon billions in this world believed the same thing (but did not package it up so to spek), why so much honor, bowing, reference and worship twards socrates, maybe in his time i could understand but... why socrates?, when it could be the 'peasants', just asking..

Barbara Brooks wrote:Freedom of mind, all sensible beings aim at. The essential feature of the mind is freedom: i.e. self-identity. Consider, this freedom keeps self-affirmative in this negativity and still possess self-identity.

Maybe but we'd have to agree upon what 'freedom of mind' means. Is 'self-identity' freedom? I suppose so, but what do you mean by 'self-identity'? What 'negativity' is un-affirming self-identity? Do you mean reason?

Thus, willpower is the kingdom of freedom. Willpower is a given nature as in want, appetite or impulse.

Can these three be grouped? "appetite or impulse" I can understand as a bodily response, but "want"?

Here is the pure thought of “I”, also the change from indefiniteness to a definite objective self, whether this is given by nature or produced out of the conception of strength of character the “I” becomes reality.

I agree if you mean that the body is a definite objective self and from it comes the indefiniteness that is self-consciouness.

The sense organ is feeling such, as taste is the muscle of the tongue, which connects itself to the mouth. Or such the noise being the organ of smell is connected with the principle of air and breathing.

We agree, its all body based?
a_uk

bus2bondi,

Plato a student of Socrates was right there in the arena scribing Socrates deep irony and great wealth of power was so dramatic. Socrates arguing in a circle the distinction is between the means and ends, causes and circumstances.

Socrates thought is to be found the greatest of all logicians is eternal. The argument of the Republic is his search after Justice, the conceptions higher State and education, as well as moral and religious, of knowledge as well as art the eternal unwearied truth.

beeb's, tonight at work i walked by the t.v. and there was some movie on that mentioned aristotle, saying something to the effect that Reason will outwiegh Passion, (oh i wish i could remember the exact words), well, the first thing i thought was that i personally think Reason and Passion mixed together are the grandest!, and why and who on earth would try to separate the two and even go so far as plot them against eachother...

i guess many a non-socrates may have reasoned the very same as i did tonight

i have read socrates and the republic and know of his "underwriter" plato, if i'm remembering correctly some wondered if Plato truly existed, lol, clever socrates, all in all i guess i do have to admit, especailly in his time he was pretty good, but still, how many other "socrates" are there in this world, that noone gave a damn about

a pontification vacation sometimes could be quite nice?

You will find many who have the name philosopher, but they only have a sense of it not the principal of philosophy, only a copy in the place of the authentic not to truth because they are unable to follow.

Look back to the epoch of philosophy that took place years ago. There are generations of philosophers the same as there are generations of plants and anything that there is a generation has an opposition generated out of opposition. I mean opposite things as just and unjust, good and evil, and the innumerable other opposites that generated out of opposites.


The question now arises how can philosophy purify and instruct the intelligence of today? We cannot begin again to bring back an earlier stage; for example, Socrates was in his time freedom had not come of age at that time nor was freedom in the Roman source of laws freedom had no consciousness.

We must not lose sight of our own higher object. We must watch over philosophers are like good farmers nurturing and cultivating gentle qualities, and preventing the wild ones from growing. Cultivate gently and with a view of soothing and removing the dislike of science.

There is a perfection which all philosophy ought to reach, and which all pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of and not till then, will the pursuit of philosophy have value otherwise there is no profit in philosophy.

How can a person help not imitating that with which philosophy holds so reverential?

We are servant s of good every one had better be ruled by this divine wisdom dwelling within them or, if this is impossible, then by an external authority, in order that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals.

Arist. Phys. p. 27b;31b): "Since the utmost limit of being is perfect, it resembles on every side the form of a well rounded sphere, which from its centre extends in all directions equally, for it can be neither larger or smaller in omne part or another.

Barbara Brooks wrote:You will find many who have the name philosopher, but they only have a sense of it not the principal of philosophy, only a copy in the place of the authentic not to truth because they are unable to follow.

Very elitist. Who decides this?

Look back to the epoch of philosophy that took place years ago. There are generations of philosophers the same as there are generations of plants and anything that there is a generation has an opposition generated out of opposition. I mean opposite things as just and unjust, good and evil, and the innumerable other opposites that generated out of opposites.

So we all talk about roughly the same things, yes? Or, we are all gossiping about what the Greats have said?

The question now arises how can philosophy purify and instruct the intelligence of today?

Arrogance. Has it ever done this? Philosophers past have either been Rulers or lap-dogs to Rulers.

We cannot begin again to bring back an earlier stage; for example, Socrates was in his time freedom had not come of age at that time nor was freedom in the Roman source of laws freedom had no consciousness.

Not understanding this? Do you wish to bring back those ages or are you pointing out that it was an 'un-free' time?

We must not lose sight of our own higher object. We must watch over philosophers are like good farmers nurturing and cultivating gentle qualities, and preventing the wild ones from growing. Cultivate gently and with a view of soothing and removing the dislike of science.

Hmm! As a sheep or plant I hate shepherds and farmers.

There is a perfection which all philosophy ought to reach, and which all pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of and not till then, will the pursuit of philosophy have value otherwise there is no profit in philosophy.

Then add some comprehensible techniques and all will profit.

How can a person help not imitating that with which philosophy holds so reverential?

I doubt they could once they knew what they were revering.

We are servant s of good every one had better be ruled by this divine wisdom dwelling within them or, if this is impossible, then by an external authority, in order that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals.

If someone has this 'in-dwelling divine wisdom' how do they get on the committee that makes up the external authority?

Arist. Phys. p. 27b;31b): "Since the utmost limit of being is perfect, it resembles on every side the form of a well rounded sphere, which from its centre extends in all directions equally, for it can be neither larger or smaller in omne part or another.

How many meanings do you think an English speaker can make sense of with the above?
a_uk

you both are on its sub-committees

Arising uk,

I find myself always defending myself to you because you break up my words into isolated sentences from the whole thought so much so that I cannot defend myself.

Tell me how do you think philosophers are to be found? I would like to hear your thoughts instead of you questioning my thoughts. I very seldom do I hear your knowledge of things.