Philosophy Now Forum

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:43 am If existence itself isn't a "thing", then how do you ontologically account for the fact that some things exist and other things don't. I don't think you can. I am not talking about "all existing things". I am talking about existence itself aside from existing things. I admit that we are here close to what cannot be thought or spoken and I should perhaps heed Wittgenstein's admonition to pass over all this in silence, nonetheless, ... .

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 6:52 pm

“How did you write something that odd about knowledge? Basic "truth" has nothing to do with helping humans.”

Then it isn’t truth. It’s a cloudburst of meaninglessness in the form of a ginormous flush of information.

I mean, why is philosophy/science popular? It is because of the impression that it produces inventions that are conquering the environment, and, the human body. And that it is going to therefore hand the ability or techniques that improve human life and bring about happiness to humans. Otherwise it would be a childish intelectual game of collecting a kind of garbage heap of worthless information.

“Working out a good everyday philosophy that helps humans is a different matter.”

The two can’t be separated for thoughtful people. The biggest difficulty in our own time is the forgetfulness of where we stand in the evolution of our own concepts. Concepts in their tangible form are possibilities. When philosophy becomes technology it becomes the possibility of what I wrote above. As a suppressed instinctive belief about progress towards happiness for human beings.

“In some issues, common sense gets eventually thrown out the window, doesn't really matter how things 'seem' to our human mind, which evolved for survival not understanding.”

Is there supposed to be some other mind that understands the information linked to the technology creation?

Think of a mathematician who makes the generic claim that math is “the language of the universe,” never mind that he doesn’t likely know the origin of this statement in Galileo’s understanding of mechanics. When was there someone whose first language was math? Entirely impossible. Math exists only for someone with a common sense, which has been received in the first year of life, and is part of the reception of an evolution of thinking.

The mathamatical thinking can never replace reality in the way it is interpreted by ordinary understanding. It stands inside it as a sort of problem-solving tool in the service of ordinary understanding.

“You are just insisting that an arbitrary circular reasoning has anything to do with "truth".”

It’s not arbitrary so far as arbitrary means without reason. It is reasonable to start with the common sense meaning of truth. Truth is what if we know it we are better off. Any other definition is arbitrary or in the service of a specific limited project which itself is ultimitly meant to serve the first understanding.

We start from common sense meanings, but common sense sometimes has several meanings of the same terms. Then we may try to discern which is the main or core meaning. As in Aristotle in book 5 of the metaphysics with the term phusis or “nature.” The question we have to ask is if we are genuinely improving common sense through philosophy/science. Everything depends on that, and on discovering a standard there.

All reasoning is circular, by the way. The only issue that can be seriously raised is when someone does not find it elucidates some matter. If I don’t know what someone means by the phrase “term of art,” and I say, it means the same as “technical term” this might be all they need, provided they already know what technical term means.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:14 pm

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:43 am If existence itself isn't a "thing", then how do you ontologically account for the fact that some things exist and other things don't. I don't think you can. I am not talking about "all existing things". I am talking about existence itself aside from existing things. I admit that we are here close to what cannot be thought or spoken and I should perhaps heed Wittgenstein's admonition to pass over all this in silence, nonetheless, ... .

I don't know what you mean, the lack of anything is just a lack of anything, it's not a 'thing'.
Also, how do you know that the 'things' you are thinking of don't exist, when you can't prove a negative?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:38 pm It's the same thing. 30 generations or so people started making a theory of objects or what is also called metaphysics, science or philosophy. It gradually came to the point where it was realized that truth or knowledge might be terrible for human beings. It was always assumed it would be Good. That is the point of Nihilismus in Nietzsche. Then a fix was made. The fact/vale distinction. The fix leads then to the view that at best the study of objects is good in a secondary way, through the production of technology and so forth. If it is not good, then why bother with it? It's just empty information. Or, an addiction.

We are human beings, so there is no sense in saying that we are seeking something that isn't somehow good. The whole idea of truth becomes meaningless as does the idea of the human being.

You presuppose a mind that can understand the truth. That can only be us. Then you delude yourself by pretending that the real truth is independent of us. Objective.

More subtly, the concept of the objective is a human concept. A notion which means tangibly a claim about the potential or posibility of something called the object. Which can only mean the object of our knowledge.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:12 am As I understand philosophy it is ontology. Ontology asks the question what exists to account to the phenomena we see. For example, I am looking for a pen and I look in a desk drawer and I see that it is not there. The fact that it is not there is present to my mind. Ontology attempts to account for the existence of that negative fact that I directly see. What is a negative fact, ontologically speaking? To dismiss the question is to dismiss the project of ontology. Of course ontology can be dismissed and ontological questions can be declared to be meaningless. Logical Positivism attempted to do just that. Still, for one who believes that ontological questions are meaningful. an answer must be found. I am an ontologist. And one of my heroes is the great Alexius Meinong. The ontology I gave in my previous answer was basically his. And also that of Bertrand Russell at one time; he kept changing his philosophy though.Once when Russell was at Yale and gave a lecture in which he asserted the existence of negative facts the students in the audience roared and sort of rioted. The composers of modern music experienced the same thing.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:40 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:12 am As I understand philosophy it is ontology. Ontology asks the question what exists to account to the phenomena we see. For example, I am looking for a pen and I look in a desk drawer and I see that it is not there. The fact that it is not there is present to my mind. Ontology attempts to account for the existence of that negative fact that I directly see. What is a negative fact, ontologically speaking? To dismiss the question is to dismiss the project of ontology. Of course ontology can be dismissed and ontological questions can be declared to be meaningless. Logical Positivism attempted to do just that. Still, for one who believes that ontological questions are meaningful. an answer must be found. I am an ontologist. And one of my heroes is the great Alexius Meinong. The ontology I gave in my previous answer was basically his. And also that of Bertrand Russell at one time; he kept changing his philosophy though.Once when Russell was at Yale and gave a lecture in which he asserted the existence of negative facts the students in the audience roared and sort of rioted. The composers of modern music experienced the same thing.

What nonsense is this, maybe direct realism taken to its extreme, taking even the 'contect' of our thoughts literally? When I think of a living dragon in my room, then there MUST be a living dragon in my room? The dragon isn't there, but that's not a negative fact.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:33 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:40 am What nonsense is this, maybe direct realism taken to its extreme, taking even the 'contect' of our thoughts literally? When I think of a living dragon in my room, then there MUST be a living dragon in my room? The dragon isn't there, but that's not a negative fact.

Yes, yes, yes, this is extreme direct realism. And Yes, it is madness. It is true philosophy.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:37 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:33 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:40 am What nonsense is this, maybe direct realism taken to its extreme, taking even the 'contect' of our thoughts literally? When I think of a living dragon in my room, then there MUST be a living dragon in my room? The dragon isn't there, but that's not a negative fact.

Yes, yes, yes, this is extreme direct realism. And Yes, it is madness. It is true philosophy.

There are much easier ways to go mad, why bother with philosophy?

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:16 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:37 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:33 am

Yes, yes, yes, this is extreme direct realism. And Yes, it is madness. It is true philosophy.

There are much easier ways to go mad, why bother with philosophy?

Philosophy is now and it has always been a form of madness. It is not something I do to myself. I am possessed by the Spirit of Philosophy. I had no choice in the matter. Could it be that you don't know the lessons of The Phaedrus?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:36 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:16 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:37 am
There are much easier ways to go mad, why bother with philosophy?

Philosophy is now and it has always been a form of madness. It is not something I do to myself. I am possessed by the Spirit of Philosophy. I had no choice in the matter. Could it be that you don't know the lessons of The Phaedrus?

Each to their own

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:03 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:36 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:16 am

Philosophy is now and it has always been a form of madness. It is not something I do to myself. I am possessed by the Spirit of Philosophy. I had no choice in the matter. Could it be that you don't know the lessons of The Phaedrus?

Each to their own

Yes, that is all one can say. Do you know the ways of madness and deception? Rationalists usually don't. Here in the Orient I have met a people who know it well. You will lose the game.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:19 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:03 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:36 am
Each to their own

Yes, that is all one can say. Do you know the ways of madness and deception? Rationalists usually don't. Here in the Orient I have met a people who know it well. You will lose the game.

Highly doubt it, but losing would be wonderful because after a very long time I could finally learn something new again.
I existed in semi-madness for decades due to a very unusual combination of biological factors, even though I'm a 'rationalist'. I think I've experienced many states of mind that you can't even reach through deep meditation or through psychotic Platonic philosophy. I probably know way more about the phantoms of the human mind than you think.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:49 am You seem to have learned one important thing, namely that madness is real and not something to be easily dismissed.