Jed

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

How does anyone know the answer to the question of what is or is not more or less important without wisdom? By guessing?

Victor here would say: "you are equivocating the meaning of wisdom", or something like that.

You define wisdom as absence of delusion. For a person to get rid of all delusion only to be able to judge what is important could turn out to be a colossal waste of time, if he then realizes that delusion is needed for happiness, and happiness is his main goal.

We are not born with a purpose. What is important in life is completely subjective. David talks as if what he prefers should be universal. He has the spirit of a dictator.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

How does anyone know the answer to the question of what is or is not more or less important without wisdom? By guessing?

Victor here would say: "you are equivocating the meaning of wisdom", or something like that.

He well might, but fortunately I have no interest whatever in anything Victor might say.

You define wisdom as absence of delusion. For a person to get rid of all delusion only to be able to judge what is important could turn out to be a colossal waste of time, if he then realizes that delusion is needed for happiness, and happiness is his main goal.

He may not have to get rid of all delusion to gain an understanding of the nature of importance and values etc. But he will need some measure of it. So, a person has to embark on that journey and travel a certain distance to be able to answer the question, otherwise he literally is just guessing.

We are not born with a purpose. What is important in life is completely subjective.

Agreed, but one cannot know that without knowing some significant facts about the nature of reality. And one cannot know this with certainly without delving quite deeply.

David talks as if what he prefers should be universal. He has the spirit of a dictator.

He would no doubt agree that values and purposes are subjective, but he would also agree with me that to know this requires certain values and goals by default. In other words, I imagine he would say there's no point in speaking about such matters unless you're going to work at understanding the basis of them, which demands knowing some things about reality. Aside from that, he maybe applies a Kantian mode of operation to his values and purpose. i.e. categorical imperative.

[1otherS]

Where does all this hostility come from? It seems to have come out of the blue.

Where is your sense of humour?

I'm just collecting your philosophical positions and telling you why they are flawed. Now if all those things you confessed about yourself are all jest..then we can steer this discussion in an entirely different direction.

Everything I say and do is jest. It's an enterprise I take very seriously.

1otherS
Clever...but not a real answer.

David Quinn was talking about women becoming more masculine.

The relevance of my post? These 2 examples show women actually taking the lead in research(=manly) and advancing the idea of Enlightenment instead of just endlessly pontificating about it on a webforum.

Science isn't about advancing enlightenment. It has nothing to say on the nature of reality or what's involved in the spiritual path. You're confusing different activities here.

It is good that women are doing science (it is better than watching TV and knitting), but as far as I know, there has never been a female genius in science. There has been no female equivalent of an Einstein or a Darwin.

And if ever there was a female genius in science, one would have to question why they were devoting their time to science and not to the infinitely more important task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise.

1otherS
The women's rights has only come in full-swing for 40 years? Before that, it was hardcore-patriarchy disabling women from getting a serious education. Now that is over, women really start pulling their weight intellectually and spiritually. If you can't see that, you're not doing your task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise. Check out Christine van Broekhoven's philosophy too-she has the same goals as you do,she just actually reaches them.

A webforum which was not created by meditating in a forest-cave but actual science.

How would you pass the time if it weren't for people like these?

How did Buddha or Lao Tzu pass the time without modern science?

-

You constantly brand practical science as inferior and built upon a dream, but without it...we wouldn't be having this chat. I want to stress that...

[1otherS]

Bump for relevance:

-David Quinn was talking about women becoming more masculine.

The relevance of my post? These 2 examples show women actually taking the lead in research(=manly) and advancing the idea of Enlightenment instead of just endlessly pontificating about it on a webforum. A webforum which was not created by meditating in a forest-cave but actual science.
How would you pass the time if it weren't for people like these?

-Dan, is it true that logic can be used to sustain delusion in people?

The heat is on, Dan! Are you ready to dance?

Firstly, could you take 10 minutes to learn to use the quote tags properly? As to Mystex's question: of course it's true. Logic employed from unsound premises can be used to support anything, in the sense that formal "validity" does not require truth.

Somehow you knew they were quotes, didn't you, so...my post can be considered comprehensible.
One thing about logic instigating delusion:

Weininger determining his psychological types.

-He claimed women had a fundamental intellectual flaw.
-He called the epitome of cowardliness and corruption a Jew.

Doesn't this look bad to you? Isn't this exactly the mode of thinking a certain dictator and mass-murderer would employ-accusing a specific minority group and the historically disadvantaged sex of intrinsic evil?
Now you know where I stand, I ask you patiently to answer my challenge.

[1otherS]

Dan,

How does anyone know the answer to the question of what is or is not more or less important without wisdom? By guessing?

Victor here would say: "you are equivocating the meaning of wisdom", or something like that.

He well might, but fortunately I have no interest whatever in anything Victor might say.
Dan Rowden

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." Run through this quote for a few dozen times. You claim to be a skilled philosopher, but you ignore this quoted advice way too often.

[Ataraxia]

That's the funny thing. He claims he doesn't care, yet he goes to great lengths to describe how he is being seen and how he is impacting and being impacted upon. Once you are aware of this in his writing, it becomes more and more significant, and distracting.

I'm finding his works full of incongruities, full of emotions and subtle emotionalisms. Unfortunately the style of writing he's chosen to frame his ideas in tends to lead to this as a matter of course. It means there's far too much for people to like in his books and far too little to dislike and be challenged by.

After listening to both books in their entirety that would encapsulate my view too.

Nonetheless I still got utility from the 2 books.It was good to get another westerners perspective on nondualism,he kinda reminded me of myself a couple of times,although I'm not nearly as advanced down the path.

I'm sure this will appear parochial, but I'm sceptical there is such a thing as an egoless American,I was hoping he may be the first I'd come across--the search continues.

Fired me up to read Moby Dick, anyhow.

[1otherS]

That's the funny thing. He claims he doesn't care, yet he goes to great lengths to describe how he is being seen and how he is impacting and being impacted upon. Once you are aware of this in his writing, it becomes more and more significant, and distracting.

I'm finding his works full of incongruities, full of emotions and subtle emotionalisms. Unfortunately the style of writing he's chosen to frame his ideas in tends to lead to this as a matter of course. It means there's far too much for people to like in his books and far too little to dislike and be challenged by.

After listening to both books in their entirety that would encapsulate my view too.

Nonetheless I still got utility from the 2 books.It was good to get another westerners perspective on nondualism,he kinda reminded me of myself a couple of times,although I'm not nearly as advanced down the path.

I'm sure this will appear parochial, but I'm sceptical there is such a thing as an egoless American,I was hoping he may be the first I'd come across--the search continues.

Fired me up to read Moby Dick, anyhow.

1otherS
There is no such thing as an egoless human being. If you think there is, give an example.

[Ataraxia]

You could be right,mate.

If there is such a human however,the last place I'd expect to find him,was 21st century America.Listening to Jed further confirmed my (admited) prejudice on the matter.

[David Quinn]

I'm just collecting your philosophical positions and telling you why they are flawed. Now if all those things you confessed about yourself are all jest..then we can steer this discussion in an entirely different direction.

Everything I say and do is jest. It's an enterprise I take very seriously.

Clever...but not a real answer.

I'm dead serious. Philosophy is essentially jest taken to the highest level.

Science isn't about advancing enlightenment. It has nothing to say on the nature of reality or what's involved in the spiritual path. You're confusing different activities here.

It is good that women are doing science (it is better than watching TV and knitting), but as far as I know, there has never been a female genius in science. There has been no female equivalent of an Einstein or a Darwin.

And if ever there was a female genius in science, one would have to question why they were devoting their time to science and not to the infinitely more important task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise.

The women's rights has only come in full-swing for 40 years? Before that, it was hardcore-patriarchy disabling women from getting a serious education. Now that is over, women really start pulling their weight intellectually and spiritually. If you can't see that, you're not doing your task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise.

To my ears, that particular excuse is starting to wear thin. I would have accepted it a hundred years ago maybe, but not nowadays. And this is not even taking into account the reality of female psychology and the various limitations it possesses, which is what ultimately causes the dearth of female geniuses, in any sphere of life.

Check out Christine van Broekhoven's philosophy too-she has the same goals as you do,she just actually reaches them.

In the absence of a link to her philosophy or some description of what it is, I cannot respond to this. All I can say is that being a molecular biologist and a woman, it is extremely unlikely that she is devoted to the propogation of enlightenment and wisdom.

You constantly brand practical science as inferior and built upon a dream, but without it...we wouldn't be having this chat. I want to stress that...

Equally, if I hadn't devoted myself to philosophy/spirituality at an early age and become proficient at it (Dan and Kevin likewise), leading to the creation of this forum, then we would not be here having this chat.

-

[Ataraxia]

[I am assuming you've seen the movie in question. So what do you think?

I think you'd get a lot from reading and understanding Nietzsche's conception of the ubermensch.

[1otherS]

I agree on your points except two: Your talk about female psychology and that my example is not dedicated to spreading E and W. You just happen to dismiss her off the bat, just because she hasn't chosen your field of expertise.

It's only been a few decades women have been allowed to institutes of higher learning enabling them to really qualify in hard sciences like philososphy and mathematics.
Now this has changed, women are making strides. Why do you reject this modern development of reality?

Look at Sue, could she have developed as much in a pre-modern civilisation? I think not-she would have been ridiculed for picking up real books and kicked back into the house.

Now I'm tired of defending a woman that's smarter than I.

Here's a website:

http://www.christinevanbroeckhoven.be/

[Ataraxia]

Sue is probably ridiculed now.

[1otherS]

-If that was directed towards me, I meant no harm.

In a Weininger-esque society women would automatically get disqualified from a serious intellectual discourse because of her so-called inferior psychology.

[Kevin Solway]

In a Weininger-esque society women would automatically get disqualified from a serious intellectual discourse because of her so-called inferior psychology.

No. Weininger believed in judging people on an individual basis. Each person is judged on their merits.

In Weininger's view, rational women are extremely rare, but that doesn't mean that they can't possibly exist.

[1otherS]

In a Weininger-esque society women would automatically get disqualified from a serious intellectual discourse because of her so-called inferior psychology.

No. Weininger believed in judging people on an individual basis. Each person is judged on their merits.

This is positive.

In Weininger's view, rational women are extremely rare, but that doesn't mean that they can't possibly exist.

This is negative. Rational women aren't any rarer than rational men.

[Dan Rowden]

What is your standard for a "rational person".

[1otherS]

Rational persons manage to act decently towards others and work towards goals improving all Mankind.

You THINK you are doing this but you're only adopting rhetorical-philosophical techniques greatly admired by the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim you=H or S...You just brag about the same funky ideas in this place and surround yourself with yes-sayers to validate your inaccurate claims.

[Dan Rowden]

And your arguments supporting this contention are............................[?]

[1otherS]

Everything you write proves my point-everything you support validates my claim.

Weininger and Kierkegaard felt like discussing genius but didn't even figure out how to stay alive. That says a lot...

You preach (not reason for) renunciation, yet you have a drinking problem.

David Quinn preaches this as well...but has a son and somehow severed ties with the mother.

Kevin Solway drinks wine and listens to folk songs...This is not the way of the Dhammapada-the book he's always gushing about.

All of Weininger's ideas and some of Nietzsche bad ones were used for launching the Nazi-platform. Weininger also got accused of being a homosexual misogynist, misanthrope and anti-semite. Do you actually feel he was just badly victimised?
You can't be serious!
...But hey, play the ignorance-game all you want to...it's really befitting of someone searching perfection and ethical behaviour!

Conclusion: if you think you're right, but become the laughing-stock of Ne Plus Ultra-members who have REAL degrees in philosophy, hard science, history...yet still feel you got the upperhand...you are living divorced from reality and your views have no merit.

[David Quinn]

There isn't any point in continuing this conversation until you calm down a bit. At the moment, you are in rant mode and your mind has hardened against anything I might say.

The core problem is that you and I have a radically different understanding of what it means to be rational and enlightened. Do you have any real idea of what I mean by these things? I assure you it has nothing to so with being "decent and working for the good of all mankind" (your definition of rationality), or being dedicated to the practice of routine science (which seems to be your idea of what promoting enlightenment means).

But as I say, until you stop being a pitbull terrier and start being human again, I can't see this conversation lasting much longer.

-

[Shahrazad]

Ataraxia,

I'm sure this will appear parochial, but I'm sceptical there is such a thing as an egoless American,I was hoping he may be the first I'd come across--the search continues.

I love it. You're not embarrassed to display your prejudices for everyone to see. Please indulge me, I'd like to hear more of them.

Does the color of the skin also dictate the level of intelligence and/or wisdom? Of course the presence of a uterus and the absence of a penis would completely disqualify a person from greatness, but is the place of birth also a determining factor? What if I had a son in the USA, but raised him in Australia and taught him the Australian way of life? Would he have more odds of being egoless than a boy raised in USA?

Oh, and there's got to be a correlation between beards and wisdom. Please explain that, too.

-

[1otherS]

There isn't any point in continuing this conversation until you calm down a bit. At the moment, you are in rant mode and your mind has hardened against anything I might say.

The core problem is that you and I have a radically different understanding of what it means to be rational and enlightened. Do you have any real idea of what I mean by these things? I assure you it has nothing to so with being "decent and working for the good of all mankind" (your definition of rationality), or being dedicated to the practice of routine science (which seems to be your idea of what promoting enlightenment means).

But as I say, until you stop being a pitbull terrier and start being human again, I can't see this conversation lasting much longer.

-

I might sound like a pitbull-terrier but I'm not angry in the least bit. I'm just saying what are bad ideas and what aren't.

Weininger conveniently calling every bad 'type' womanly will always look strange to me.

Nietzsche's Übermensch-concept could use some work too: anyone calling this or that individual a Superman...hasn't understood life because on this Planet...we're all working with the same tools.

N's a great guy though: in some of his works he comes off as a victimised megalomaniac, in others he's the funniest realist there is.

[Dan Rowden]

Everything you write proves my point-everything you support validates my claim.

You'll have to do better than this. Supporting an unsupported contention with another unsupported contention is nonsense on stilts. You have to appreciate that you are tossing around some very hefty accusations. Do you think throwing around terms like misogyny, misanthropy etc is like tossing confetti at a wedding? It requires some decent argument otherwise you just look like an hysterical, moralist dickwad.

Weininger and Kierkegaard felt like discussing genius but didn't even figure out how to stay alive. That says a lot...

It says absolutely nothing. Oh, actually, that's not true. The fact that you think is says something says a lot about you. Do you know why people such as you make so much of a big deal of Weininger's suicide (the reasons for which we cannot know)? It's because it's a great and easy substitute for real argument and real thought.

You preach (not reason for) renunciation, yet you have a drinking problem.

I like a beer. I don't find it a problem. Your notion of renunciation is likely one along ascetic lines. Are you another one of those fools who thinks we preach asceticism? You've read too many of Mikiel's posts.

David Quinn preaches this as well...but has a son and somehow severed ties with the mother.

As, see, so now we move from an absence of actual argument to outright, petty character assassination. You are beginning to look decidedly pathetic. David had this boy something like 17 years ago. I don't think Dave would claim to have been in sage mode back then. When you say that he has "severed" ties with the boy's mother, where do you get this information? Out of your imagination? You do know that Sue Hindmarsh is the mother, right?

Kevin Solway drinks wine and listens to folk songs...This is not the way of the Dhammapada-the book he's always gushing about.

Wow, no wonder you are so determined to defend the feminine mindset. You do love your gossip.

All of Weininger's ideas and some of Nietzsche bad ones were used for launching the Nazi-platform.

That's utter rubbish. I can't believe how blindingly stupid you've suddenly become.

Weininger also got accused of being a homosexual misogynist, misanthrope and anti-semite. Do you actually feel he was just badly victimised?

You think it means something for a person to be accused of these things? If you do, there's no hope for you. I guess you think they were right to crucify Jesus. Do us all a favour, don't ever become a jurist.

You can't be serious!

That's funny; that's exactly the response I have to your every post. You'd have to at least appreciate the irony of that.

...But hey, play the ignorance-game all you want to...it's really befitting of someone searching perfection and ethical behaviour!

I suggest you start making some proper arguments, because your posts are now descending into troll territory.

Conclusion: if you think you're right, but become the laughing-stock of Ne Plus Ultra-members who have REAL degrees in philosophy, hard science, history...yet still feel you got the upperhand...you are living divorced from reality and your views have no merit.

Can you name all the logical fallacies you committed in that paragraph?

[Dan Rowden]

Weininger conveniently calling every bad 'type' womanly will always look strange to me.

Why? Don't you understand why he did so? Think of it terms of unconsciousness and the fact that all bad things arise out of a lack of consciousnesses. If you see it in this context, it should become clear.

[Dan Rowden]

There is no such thing as an egoless human being.

This is an inductively false claim. You simply can't know that this is true. And, even if it was, it's irrelevant.