Philosophy Now Forum

Hi. I believe that the sciences are purely human inventions and when we impose upon them the status of 'truth' we falsify them with our oversized egos. They can't really exist outside of our little heads.

What I mean is we are forced by an essentially 'blind' nature to believe in things like God, or the transcendental ego, physics, 'free will' etc. But it was we who invented reason (and therefore science) on our way to a universal (alleged- the concept of 'totality' is already interpretation) purposelessness. There is the distinct possibility that all of so-called 'human' freedoms granted by physics today will be 'proven' false in the future.

In "The Critique Of Judgment" Kant argued that metaphysics or synthesis of the many particular laws of nature into an organic whole, or system, is one of the needs of the soul. And it is this phony and meaningless 'need' that forces all you liars to populate reality with your so-called 'absolute' identities; these absolute lies. You deceive yourselves by attempting to stamp Being upon the nature of Becoming. Such a disgrace!


And so the inner 'clock-work' of the human mind automatically lies to us; forces us to lie to ourselves so pathetically. The difference between you and me is that you call your lies 'sacred', call them 'God', call them 'physics', I call them lies.

-

The biggest lie ever told is that Truth exists and that it should be sought.

Convincing people to seek truth, is a bit like playing hide-and-seek with a puppy.

It's a game in which the seeker is not in control.

Science, as method, can offer erroneous results; but only scientists can lie.

don't blame the hammer, blame the wielder

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:38 pm The biggest lie ever told is that Truth exists and that it should be sought.

Convincing people to seek truth, is a bit like playing hide-and-seek with a puppy.

It's a game in which the seeker is not in control.

If that is a truth then you contradict yourself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:27 pm If that is a truth then you contradict yourself.

Sounds like you already know what "truth" is.

That's Meno's paradox. And a violation of the trillema.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:38 pm The biggest lie ever told is that Truth exists and that it should be sought.

Convincing people to seek truth, is a bit like playing hide-and-seek with a puppy.

It's a game in which the seeker is not in control.

That's an interesting view. So, for example, a Zen master is simply playing a game with the student for no other reason than to keep the student under control? I suppose a follow on question would be, would the opposite be a better state of affairs? Would it be better if the Zen masters didn't control the students? What would the students then be doing?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:41 pm That's an interesting view. So, for example, a Zen master is simply playing a game with the student to keep the student under control?

The Zen master is guiding the student towards Zen mastery - it's good ol' proselytising. Whether being a Zen master lives up to the student's expectation of Zen mastery - there's only one way to find out.

One of the most colourful characters I ever met was an ex-buddhist monk. He got tired of peeling potatoes on the road towards Zen mastery, so he decided to be a stoner-hippie-bartender in Goa, India.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:41 pm I suppose a follow on question would be, would the opposite be a better state of affairs?
Would it be better if the Zen masters didn't control the students? What would the students then be doing?

Better for whom? It sure is better for the Zen master to have more students - Buddhist monasteries need slaves... errr, I mean devotees to keep running, even most of them don't become Zen masters themselves.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:50 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:41 pm That's an interesting view. So, for example, a Zen master is simply playing a game with the student to keep the student under control?

The Zen master is guiding the student towards Zen mastery - it's good ol' proselytising. Whether being a Zen master lives up to the student's expectation of Zen mastery - there's only one way to find out.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:41 pm I suppose a follow on question would be, would the opposite be a better state of affairs?
Would it be better if the Zen masters didn't control the students? What would the students then be doing?

Better for whom? It sure is better for the Zen master to have more students even most of them don't become Zen masters themselves.

Would it be good for the students to become Zen masters? I mean, if some don't make it then that's to be expected. But the ones that do make it, are they learning something, perhaps a way of life, that is beneficial to them?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:52 pm Would it be good for the students to become Zen masters? I mean, if some don't make it then that's to be expected. But the ones that do make it, are they learning something, perhaps a way of life, that is beneficial to them?

I figure it is beneficial to them. Else they'd go do something else than being Zen masters.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:53 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:52 pm Would it be good for the students to become Zen masters? I mean, if some don't make it then that's to be expected. But the ones that do make it, are they learning something, perhaps a way of life, that is beneficial to them?

I figure it is beneficial to them. Else they'd go do something else than being Zen masters.

Yes. It seems like learning control over one's own body and desires is probably a good discipline to know. In some ways, I wish I had the same discipline as a Zen master. In other ways, I'm perhaps happier not to. It's a difficult thing to weigh but I would think a Zen master would be much more dynamic and much more able to adjust to hardships and things like that than I am.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 6:07 pm Science, as method, can offer erroneous results; but only scientists can lie.

don't blame the hammer, blame the wielder

Hammer time

-Imp

Regarding the title of the thread, one can prove that it is not the case that science is all lies by producing one example of science that is not a lie.

The science of gravity is not a lie.

You can demonstrate gravity for yourself by jumping into the sky. All else being equal, gravity will bring you to Earth.

QED.

Dr. Spock wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:26 pm Hi. I believe that the sciences are purely human inventions and when we impose upon them the status of 'truth' we falsify them with our oversized egos. They can't really exist outside of our little heads.

I think you overstate your claim.
And since you have not asserted a thing that offers a "proof" there is nothing here to "disprove".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:35 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:27 pm If that is a truth then you contradict yourself.

Sounds like you already know what "truth" is.

That's Meno's paradox. And a violation of the trillema.

False, one can both know and not know truth.

As assumed truth is evident as is.
As regressive not all truth is evident as subject to regress.
As circular truth is repetitive even through new forms.

Dr. Spock wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:26 pm Hi. I believe that the sciences are purely human inventions and when we impose upon them the status of 'truth' we falsify them with our oversized egos. They can't really exist outside of our little heads.

Yeah, but if the outside conforms with the inside of our little heads as our little heads have observed the outside to be then it's a lie to call it a lie!