NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism

[NickOtani]

What you don't seem to get, Nick, is that philosophy is personal not academic.

I'd say matters of taste are personal. Personal opinions are personal. Truth, however, is a bit more complicated. There is an objective aspect of it, an aspect which cannot be influenced by wishes and whims or personal opinion. One ought not say, "Well, to me that telephone pole is a tea cup. You can still think of it as a telephone pole if you want, but philosophy is personal, relative to each individual's own interpretation. You can't tell me what is true and what isn't. Go join those stupid academic philosophers like Nick Otani. He's no better than a Christian fundamentalist or member of the Ku Klux Klan. I know this with 100% certainty because philosophy is personal, and that's the way I personally see it."

bis bald,

Nick

[NickOtani]

We are talking about formal, axiomatic systems, so any statement that is provable from the axioms is still provable.

Yes, but then the axioms are, by definition, not provable. And, when we see that all the definitions and rules if inference are part of a system, we need to check that system for coherency. Otherwise, we have an isolated piece of a larger puzzel which may or may not fit.

There is an entire page in Principia Mathematica devoted to proving that 1+1=2, based on axioms, definitions, and rules of inference. 2+2=4 is even harder, even though it is actually only a way of saying A=A. But if this is part of a system which includes the possibility of A not equalling A or is forever open, then we can only have a high degree of certainty, not 100% provable certainty.

One of my professors, William F. O'Neal, from the University of Southern California, went so far as to say all logical conclusions are ultimately either inconclusive, as Hume said inductive arguments are, or sophisticated pronouncements of faith, where the conclusion is simply reiterated from the premises, as in the circular deductive arguments.

I look at this not as a weakness of logic but a strength. Logic points to its own weaknesses. It's a safety valve that blind faith and other criteria of truth do not have. Logic is a tool, not a prison. We should use it, not let it use us.

bis bald,

Nick

[Pye]

What do you do exactly, may I ask? You work in a university, I presume?

I'm a non-PhD, non-tenure track adjunct prof, a.k.a "maverick" "Roads Scholar" hit-and-run independent philosophy teacher. It is of my own idiot design, this vow of poverty, this freedom from the publish-or-perish culture and administrative committee bullshit. I looked down the long dark hall of the PhD and decided I did not want the job; I stopped a doctoral fellowship in philosophy dead in its tracks to get instead another masters degree so I could teach more courses. Academics work for each other but I am free to work for the studentia, at the very least, in introducing them to their thinking lives. You'd be shocked they don't know they have them. Or maybe not shocked at all.

You have to be a good teacher to stay employed as an adjunct since that's all you're expected to do and fortunately for me I have constructed full-time steady employment teaching (mostly intro) philosophy between two different local universities; between four, I am having to turn down work half the time. I have never had trouble making a living at this, but it's a lean one and I feel clean for that. I am four years now at this one well-heeled university of some national note; three years at another in the humanities, and four years prior to that at one place, too. We scabs are valuable for our cheap labor and breadth of capacity so I am all the time with full-time work from them, right now teaching philosophy & lit, Philo of Art, and an intro to thoughts eastern; all-day seminars in the humanities on the weekend.

Are you saying that academics don't take their own writings seriously? Or just the whole peer review thing? Is it just a job for them?

Depending on how you mean serious here, David, as I've taken my occasions to read and listen to what serious means to this board. Serious like that for the academics? It'd be my ass talking, but no, I don't see anything commensurate in them with what you're doing here. There's lots of social activism of a sort; I've seen lots of casting-out of ethical and moral problems needing work, but not this Truth thing, no. I don't know if they're seeing it as just a job. There is often deep seriousness about their particular field, as against other fields, here again in that cul-de-sac of thinking.

Quote:
Truth - too strong an article of faith; now "validity" is the best one can shoot for. As long as you connect your dots, you can speak. If you claim absolutely, then you have become fundamentalist, no matter the claim made.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Well definitionally, how can I disagree? The fundamental, like Truth, does not change, yes? But fundamentalism is seriously out of favor at the present point in time, no? Look how effective an insult it becomes even on this board! No, I think it is a style of thinking or presenting to which each of you might object, but I am not sure I see what distinguishes them from each other.

Do you have any of your material on the web which we can read?

Och no, though it is kind of you to ask. I have theses published in-house at two universities but they, along with all my other academic writing is just bead-game and sounds very young to me now. I once thought I would write my magnum opus in philosophy, now I do not really want to write philosophy at all, but fiction. Well, sort of fiction - I would like to write things like Dostoevsky! I think it is true that there are some things can only be said in literature, seen about us in action, in the human story. I would like to take what I see about us and do it like that, show it, instead of telling it (philosophy).

Yes, the basic goal is to remove all delusions from the mind and dwell in what's left. This involves eliminating all unfounded assumptions and contradictory thought-processes, dismantling all mental blocks and compartments, and opening up one's mind to the nature of Reality, which is everywhere around us.

Thanks for this exegesis. I figure I shouldn't have started writing here. I am better as a read-only person on forums; things get interesting and I would want to keep up the quality of posting, but as the people at talkphilosophy already know, I am having to be absent for weird blocks of time and then feel badly for my lack of continuity. Regular posters to boards like this really amaze me with their dedication (and their quantity of time!). That has to be put up with about me being here, or there. but thanks for the welcome. One of these days, I have a ton of questions for you. Curious ones, rather than argumentative ones.

Tell me, Pye, what is “academic philosophy”?

Anything created for the publish-or-perish community, Nick. That's how I've been using it. If it is created for the community itself, it's academic. When you, or a Nietzsche, or somebody, anybody, steps outside of that community and sings from the bottom of their entrails what they know about existence and life, they have a chance to be a philosopher, alone. If you stay in there and just move around the beads, it's academic. It makes no difference if there are skeptics and logical positivists and all kinds of thinking types and styles. If they write for each other, it's doomed. You have to write alone; do this alone. from your entrails. or something.

I don’t think people who ramble on about nothing, like EI does, are engaging in philosophy.

Frankly, Nick, I've found more wisdom in EI's sentimental paragraphs than in "your" philosophy. It's really too bad you let the form so dominate the content. In this, one can't recognize wisdom at the door unless it's wearing a proper suit and tie. And we all know how 'fundamentalist' that is :)

Post your last rebuttal on my board, and I’ll respond to it, just as I’m responding to this post.

relentless recruiter, please don't give me anymore homework to do. I figure when you blow off points in debate the first time, you have your reasons and it's proven fruitless to chase them back down.

I think most of the thinking is coming from me. These guys haven’t really challenged me, and I’m getting a little bored with this.

That's too bad, Nick, really. You could learn something from this exchange. If you want to be more than an academic philosopher; if you want the "academic" taken off of that. I rather think you find it an attractive modifier and rank it higher than "philosopher" alone.

I’m concerned with what is, what is true, how we know, and what is good.

thanks for that directly. How do you and David think the nature of your projects match up?

[Shardrol]

What does 'bis bald' mean? Thank you.

[Jamesh]

bis bald = See you soon

PS. I like this Pye fellow. Most down to earth and realistic. I hope he does come back some time to ask David and Co some questions.

[David Quinn]

Hey Nick,

I didn't quite catch your response to this one:

N: Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

DQ: The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not nothing whatsoever, that experiences are occuring, is 100% certain and true.

Checkmate.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Nick wrote, revealing an important difference in how we are perceiving things:

2+2=4 is even harder, even though it is actually only a way of saying A=A.

Arrrrhhhhhh!!!! No it isn't! 2+2=4 is an equation. A=A is neither an equation nor a proposition. This is where we are going so wildly astray in communication of thought. A=A signitifies the Law of Identity. It is a fleshed out version of: A

That is, for the person who understands what A=A is attempting to symbolise, "A" would be sufficient. 2+2=4 is built on A=A. In other words it contains differentiated content - the very essence of consciousness. Godel's theorems have no relevance to this whatever. A=A, when understood properly (i.e. as used and intended by me!) has certain natural implications. What I contend they are, are as follows:

A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content [i.e. "things"]. A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

Regarding the issue of whether things exist when not being observed, I still maintain that unless you come up with a clear meaning (definition) for "exist" whatever you say about this issue cannot have meaning. The question of what you are saying when you claim that things exist when not being observed remains unanswered and therefore the assertion lacks meaning. The coherence of my wanting to tie the notion of a thing's existence to its relativity to an observer of some kind seems obvious to me: differentiation/demarcation is what gives any given thing its identity as an individually existing entity. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever (and nor can there be) that any thing exists when not observed. It is an article of faith wafting around in an evidential vacuum. That my perspective on things may seem counterintuitive is neither here nor there since we know that many things that are so are contrary to what we believe intuitively.


Dan Rowden

[David Quinn]

Pye,

DQ: What do you do exactly, may I ask? You work in a university, I presume?

P: I'm a non-PhD, non-tenure track adjunct prof, a.k.a "maverick" "Roads Scholar" hit-and-run independent philosophy teacher. It is of my own idiot design, this vow of poverty, this freedom from the publish-or-perish culture and administrative committee bullshit. I looked down the long dark hall of the PhD and decided I did not want the job;

Good for you.

One has to wonder what all the young academics coming through the system really expect to get out of it. Even if they gain everything their egos desire – fame, respect from other academics, citations, honorary awards, etc – they will still only end up as forgotten footnotes in the convoluted history of academia. Their names will be no more remembered than those medieval monks who slaved away anonymously in monastries arguing obscure theological points.

And in five hundred years time, their work will seem just as archaic. That’s one of the problems of the academic system. It is a slave to fashion and thus most of what it does now will be outdated in the years to come.

The most brilliant thinkers of the past few hundred years - Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, etc - all opted to work outside the academic system, as they knew just how limiting it was.

You have to be a good teacher to stay employed as an adjunct since that's all you're expected to do and fortunately for me I have constructed full-time steady employment teaching (mostly intro) philosophy between two different local universities; between four, I am having to turn down work half the time. I have never had trouble making a living at this, but it's a lean one and I feel clean for that.

How do you go about introducing students to the standard academic arguments and encouraging them to immerse themselves in a methodology that you personally don’t believe in? Are you forced to become a little underhanded and subtly encourage them to look beyond academia?

P: Truth - too strong an article of faith; now "validity" is the best one can shoot for. As long as you connect your dots, you can speak. If you claim absolutely, then you have become fundamentalist, no matter the claim made.

DQ: Do you agree or disagree with this?

N: Well definitionally, how can I disagree? The fundamental, like Truth, does not change, yes? But fundamentalism is seriously out of favor at the present point in time, no? Look how effective an insult it becomes even on this board! No, I think it is a style of thinking or presenting to which each of you might object, but I am not sure I see what distinguishes them from each other.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist, as long as one is strictly focused on comprehending the nature of Reality with one’s mind alone.

The difference between the fundamentalism that I practice and all other forms of fundamentalism is that I don’t accept any external entities as sources of authority. In other words, I don’t bow down to a particular book, person, community, dogma, school of thought, or even empirical data. I don’t bow down to the mainstream, nor to anything on the fringes. The only thing I bow down to is my own mind.

“Fundamentalism” is usually an insulting term because it implies that the person has meekly submitted to a particular system or dogma – which, of course, is what Nick has done. But it’s no insult if the fundamentalist concerned is wholly focused upon Truth alone. Rather, I would call it “noble”.

Thanks for this exegesis. I figure I shouldn't have started writing here. I am better as a read-only person on forums; things get interesting and I would want to keep up the quality of posting, but as the people at talkphilosophy already know, I am having to be absent for weird blocks of time and then feel badly for my lack of continuity. Regular posters to boards like this really amaze me with their dedication (and their quantity of time!). That has to be put up with about me being here, or there. but thanks for the welcome. One of these days, I have a ton of questions for you. Curious ones, rather than argumentative ones.

No problem. We’ll still be here ….

-

[David Quinn]

Pye,

N:Tell me, Pye, what is “academic philosophy”?

P: Anything created for the publish-or-perish community, Nick. That's how I've been using it. If it is created for the community itself, it's academic. When you, or a Nietzsche, or somebody, anybody, steps outside of that community and sings from the bottom of their entrails what they know about existence and life, they have a chance to be a philosopher, alone. If you stay in there and just move around the beads, it's academic. It makes no difference if there are skeptics and logical positivists and all kinds of thinking types and styles. If they write for each other, it's doomed. You have to write alone; do this alone. from your entrails. or something.

That is beautiful writing. I would only add that not only does it have to come from one’s entrails, but it also has to be fully-reasoned out and capable of pointing the mind in the direction of Truth. Only then could I begin to call it “philosophy”. Being passionate and solitary is not enough; without the shaping force of rationality it ceases to be philosophy and degenerates into art instead.

-

[Rhett]

.

David: What about the statement, "100% verification is not possible"? Has this been verified? Or have you simply accepted it on faith?

Nick: No, I accept it because it has a high degree of certainty.

That's pure abuse of the word certainty Nick. Either something is certain, 100%, or it is uncertain.

For example, we might reason that it is 99.999% likely that the sun will appear in the morning, but we are nevertheless uncertain of it's rising.

Rhett: I gave all the information required. You can't subversively add information to my example. It is my example. If you think there is a fault in the example, or that it needs extra information, or you don't agree with my assertion of what you would project upon my example, then just say so and express your thoughts.

Nick: The nice thing about message board debates is that there is a record of what was and was not said. We can, if we want, go back and reread what was said. You said: “I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises." And I said: “Can you recognize the premises for my conclusions, or do you also like to toss around terms for which you do not know the meaning?” Since then, you have evaded that question by accusing me of evading you somehow or adding information to your example. Are you not able to point out premises and conclusions?

It's a stupid question, to ask me to give you a piece of data you know and i don't (because you haven't told me). If you have premises that you wish to add to my example, then lets talk about them.

I'm thinking i'm going to keep going with you until you address my challenge, see if it can occur and how long it takes. The record of your evasiveness is clear for any sane person to see.

Rhett: It's up to you to be honest about what you have seen. All too many people muddy reality with pleasing illusions.

Nick: You made an unsupported accusation that I don’t see things as they are, just because I don’t see things as you see them. I asked you how you knew what I saw, and you don’t respond.

I'm quite willing to work with generalisations and make basic assumptions. We both do this on a regular basis, if we didn't communication wouldn't get off the ground.

Rhett: If I am walking alone in remote and precipitous mountain country at dusk and stub my toe on a rock, the toe may become harmed, perhaps sore for a little while. But i do not consider the rock or the low level of light to be evil.

Nick: In my model, based on survival, that which promotes and protects life is good, and that which threatens and destroys it is evil.

Can you explain the relationship between your academic interests, e.g. the liars paradox, and the promotion and protection of life? I see no correlation between what you deem good and your actions on this forum.

On the contrary, i see your model as promoting and protecting the ego, which in actuality threatens and destroys life. It is the ego that impels people to do evil.

Nick: Pain is an indication that something is wrong, evil. It is to be avoided.

Then why do you cling to the emotions?

Nick: In an environment without evil, one might stub one’s toe and receive a reward rather than pain.

Pleasing illusions again. This is weird stuff Nick. I don't even hear this from the new-age folks.

Nick: In such an environment, where nothing painful or bad can possibly happen, there can be no risk, bravery, courage, sympathy, or compassion.

So you don't see that the sage is taking a risk and being courageous and brave by walking alone in remote and precipitous mountain country at dusk? He could easily have a mishap. Sure, he's got no emotional investment in the outcome, but his life could become impaired, or cease altogether.

As for sympathy, what a counterproductive waste of time.

Compassion towards what is true and good, yes, but most definitely not the promotion and protection of the ego.

Rhett: I responded to the problem; "It's [just] a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content".

Nick: No, that’s an evasion. If someone asks you to solve for [(A -> B ^A)-> B] if A is false and B is false, would you dismiss it as empty of content?

I don't consider my response an evasion. What would be your response to it?

I would however chose not to respond to your additional example. What a waste of a life i reckon.

.

[Rhett]

.

N: Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

DQ: The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not nothing whatsoever, that experiences are occuring, is 100% certain and true.

In attempt to avoid misconstructions, and to expand on the point, i paraphrase . . .

'The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not completely formless, that form is indeed occurring, is 100% certain and true, proofed by the very appearance of what is occurring now.'

'One would, however, be mistaken to construe that there is a boundary between these. Nature is necessarily seamless.'

.

[NickOtani]

Anything created for the publish-or-perish community, Nick. That's how I've been using it. If it is created for the community itself, it's academic. When you, or a Nietzsche, or somebody, anybody, steps outside of that community and sings from the bottom of their entrails what they know about existence and life, they have a chance to be a philosopher, alone. If you stay in there and just move around the beads, it's academic. It makes no difference if there are skeptics and logical positivists and all kinds of thinking types and styles. If they write for each other, it's doomed. You have to write alone; do this alone. from your entrails. or something.

I don’t create anything for the publish or perish community. I’ve read some journal stuff and agree it is non-sense, a lot of scholarly jargon which doesn’t say anything, and you should recognize that I don’t write like that. However, if Nietzsche is not part of the community of academics, because he rebels against systematic philosophers and writes in aphorisms, he would probably still be considered academic to these guys, simply because he is a name that is dropped. Most philosophers these guys consider academic philosophers were rebels, outsiders, in their day. It was George McCarthy who said all conservatives are worshipers of dead radicals. Ayn Rand is not accepted by professors who read papers at conferences. Sartre’s name is dropped these days only for his connection to post-modernists like Derrida. I am a substitute teacher with an undergraduate degree in philosophy and another undergraduate degree in teaching English at the secondary level, and I have a master’s in Education from USC. So, I don’t think I qualify as an academic philosopher, but I have essays publish around the internet, and I have been cited in other scholarly essays, as a strong atheist. If someone looks up Neo-Objectivism, they will find a link to my board. However, I don’t think I am in the academic philosophers’ tent, as you describe it. So, all this accusation that I am associated with academic philosophy is BS. It is just something people who are ignorant of philosophy and philosophers say to hide their ignorance, and you support it. Rather than trying to facilitate wisdom, you encourage ignorance. As a teacher, you suck!

Frankly, Nick, I've found more wisdom in EI's sentimental paragraphs than in "your" philosophy. It's really too bad you let the form so dominate the content. In this, one can't recognize wisdom at the door unless it's wearing a proper suit and tie. And we all know how 'fundamentalist' that is :)

Then go back to it. Quit following me around. Go be his stalker. I can’t stand that guy’s rambling on and calling Nietzsche a Nazi who was insane from syphilis. We tried to educate this guy, but he wanted to hold onto his prejudices, but then he accused me of being obstinate. He and EI also misrepresented what I said and called me names for saying things I didn’t say. When I tried to correct them, you said you weren’t interested in all this “I didn’t say that” stuff. You criticized me and not them. You are not interested in truth. Your friends are the liars and air heads of the internet. Go back and be buddies with them. Wallow in stupidity with them. Stay away from me.

relentless recruiter, please don't give me anymore homework to do. I figure when you blow off points in debate the first time, you have your reasons and it's proven fruitless to chase them back down.

I changed my mind. I don’t want you on my board. I did not blow off points. You lie. I don’t like dishonest people on my board.

That's too bad, Nick, really. You could learn something from this exchange. If you want to be more than an academic philosopher; if you want the "academic" taken off of that. I rather think you find it an attractive modifier and rank it higher than "philosopher" alone.

I would like to do what you do, teach introductory philosophy classes. I’d love to tell students about Thales and Socrates and Diogenes and the whole Greek story. And, I think I could make philosophy of the middle ages and enlightenment era interesting and link it historically with what is going on now. I could make it relevant. I would connect the tree falling in the forest to natural rights and ethics. Yes, I might be controversial, but I would make philosophy exciting. I wouldn’t tell them to just blow off all these names because they are “academic” philosophers. I wouldn’t just go through the motions and secretly hate what I’m doing, preferring to hang with those who hate philosophy and people like me who love it.

PS. I like this Pye fellow. Most down to earth and realistic. I hope he does come back some time to ask David and Co some questions.

Pye is actually a woman. You know, something you accuse me of being, as your feeble attempt to insult me. She’d probably like you too. You should get to know her other friends.

Bis bald,

Nick

[NickOtani]

'The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not completely formless, that form is indeed occurring, is 100% certain and true, proofed by the very appearance of what is occurring now.'

As I said before, something may appear to be true but not true in reality. Magicians and slight of hand artists can trick the senses all the time. Appearance is a poor test of truth. It doesn't prove something 100%.

I realize you won't believe this, but I thought I'd respond anyway.

bis bald,

Nick

[Pye]

DQ writes:

. . . . they will still only end up as forgotten footnotes in the convoluted history of academia. Their names will be no more remembered than those medieval monks who slaved away anonymously in monastries arguing obscure theological points . . . . their work will seem just as archaic . . . . most of what it does now will be outdated in the years to come.

I am to understand from this that you don't mean lasting fame as a litmus of success too, right? That you mean longevity or notoriety as a measure of the thought's/thinkers worth, yes? I mean, I know you don't mean this in the popularity contest sense of thinking, especially the long popularity contest of history. (right?)

How do you go about introducing students to the standard academic arguments and encouraging them to immerse themselves in a methodology that you personally don’t believe in? Are you forced to become a little underhanded and subtly encourage them to look beyond academia?

well, ah, maybe not so subtly :) I do things this way: we read primary texts (the works themselves) and leave all the pre-digested academic exegesis out the door. It becomes a thing between the students and the original philosophy itself. I try to make sure I am presenting thus-and thus's philosophy with the best understanding I have of it, answering all possible objections to it that are based upon misunderstanding. Once the understanding is relatively well-grounded, I start asking them to think their way past it, if they can. Then I'm in the role of seeing whether the chain of reasoning they present is of soundness. I point out where it is not. They keep trying; I keep listening, moving them from stuck places. That's really about all can get accomplished in the semester-frame, with well-heeled students drunk on the material world, anxious to death about their monetary futures. I think they think my class is some weird oddity about college, but really it is to this university's credit that two courses in philo are required for all. I complain along with them endlessly that most of the rest of their classes are teaching them to be little copy machines when it is my naive hope that philosophy can instead teach them to be thinkers.

Teachers can be pretty boring when they talk about pedagogy, but just this one thing seriously: right now the thing that is really starting to bug me (that didn't used to) is the supreme flaccidity with which young college students approach their values. These are either immoveable inheritances from upbringing (one would even think of tampering with them!), or they are the thin soup of "received diversity" that wouldn't dare to presume to state a value they have categorically. Look, I know all about the no-value in other ways of thinking, but this kind of thing I'm looking at is starting to seem like some sort of pathology. Just today in the philo of art how repetitious the offers to define were: like, art is anything you want it to be. And, some cultures might think thus and thus is art so that's good enough, etc. Gee it's great they know how to think like tolerant individuals, but they don't seem to understand they really have to recapture their redefined values out on the other side. They seem to think they have escaped this work altogether!

The only thing I bow down to is my own mind.

And here, too, then, I understand you don't really mean "bowing" at all and I get your general drift.

Being passionate and solitary is not enough; without the shaping force of rationality it ceases to be philosophy and degenerates into art instead.

Yes, the rhetorical "entrails" I was hoping would scoop all this from the bottom up. I have seen though, David, the shaping force of rationality create some pretty clever, and even tricksy things. So I take it you have a certain shape and 'health' if you will, of rationality in mind, like the well-functioning variety assumed by a Socrates or Plato.

Easy with the "degenerates." :) I'd wager that Dostoevsky saw things about human nature that no philosopher has ever reached with their best writing. That's what I mean about the "showing." It's all right there - in existence. Crazy as it sounds, it is exactly appearance I am interested in. I'm in this phase or something right now where everything seems so simple and completely evident, right there before one's very eyes. It's all there. I think I'm being closer to it with this story work than I have ever been in my best blow-hard philosophic expression, but that's just me.

No problem. We’ll still be here ….

That's great. One really quick:

Are there any noteworthy distinctions to be made between the truth of causality as you see it, and the way of the pure "determinist" thinker? Sorry if you've been asked this before. I am just curious if you would like to make any distinctions.

Take your time, ta. I'll definitely make time to keep looking in.

Pye is actually a woman.

Well, I just got here and could have cleared this up myself. There's no intent to deceive. I do not belong, it is true, to the gender that does not have to announce itself this way, but I am getting used to this that I must apparently do for "credibility's" sake.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: 'The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not completely formless, that form is indeed occurring, is 100% certain and true, proofed by the very appearance of what is occurring now.'

Nick: As I said before, something may appear to be true but not true in reality. Magicians and slight of hand artists can trick the senses all the time. Appearance is a poor test of truth. It doesn't prove something 100%.

One might, for example, experience a normal person step into a box, then the box get cut in half, and then feet twinkling out one half and a head and smiling face out the other.

The notion that the original person has been cut in half may present an appearance, and yes, it would be liable to error, however the experience of the notion as well as the earlier experiences are unfalsifiable.

.

[Pye]

There are enough intelligent people here, Nick, such that I do not have to defend myself from your post, for their sake or mine.

[Jason]

NickOtani wrote:
My philosophy rejects both Objectivism and Existentialism in their pure forms, but it affirms what works in each. Now, it is a new philosophy which can be extended and tested on its own.

Ksolway wrote:
If you can state clearly and simply what it is, we can evealuate it. But if it includes a jumble of references to other obscure, confused, and worthless ideas, I won't have time for it.

NickOtani wrote:
If my references are obscure for you, then don't bother talking to me. I came here to find people who recognize my references and don't need the basic education in philosophy.

Here is a symptom of the worst of the academic mindset: you dismiss anyone who doesn't have a knowledge of your academically recognized references. It is the quality of a persons thought and ideas that are what counts in philosophy, not the fact that they might have read a bunch of books about what some academically-noted philosophers thought. Philosophy is about examining reality, not books.

[David Quinn]

Nick wrote:

'The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not completely formless, that form is indeed occurring, is 100% certain and true, proofed by the very appearance of what is occurring now.'

As I said before, something may appear to be true but not true in reality. Magicians and slight of hand artists can trick the senses all the time. Appearance is a poor test of truth. It doesn't prove something 100%.

I realize you won't believe this, but I thought I'd respond anyway.

This is very strange behaviour. You've made up a quote which nobody here has said and then you dismiss it as though it were a load of rubbish .... ?!?

Let's start again. You asked: "Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty."

And I responded: "The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not nothing whatsoever, that experiences are occuring, is 100% certain and true."

As I say, this is 100% certain and true, and thus it completely refutes your entire philosophic outlook - which asserts that "everything is uncertain".

If you want to challenge this 100% certain truth, then you need to provide compelling evidence which demonstrates that nothing exists at all and that experiences aren't happening.

Good luck.

<Cue bluster and evasive manoeuvres>

-

[Jamesh]

Well, I just got here and could have cleared this up myself. There's no intent to deceive. I do not belong, it is true, to the gender that does not have to announce itself this way, but I am getting used to this that I must apparently do for "credibility's" sake.

I‘m more or less a misogynist, I almost always don’t like the minds of women (not that I like males that much either).

I took for granted, due to the candidness and openness of your words, that you were a male. One just doesn’t expect to see the lack of traditionally valued emotions in women visitors to this forum (unless they are just playing a hardcore role, while being under the domination of same male guru, or psychotic).

You are picking up things that still irk me about the QRSs* viewpoints, such as:

“I am to understand from this that you don't mean lasting fame as a litmus of success too, right? That you mean longevity or notoriety as a measure of the thought's/thinkers worth, yes? I mean, I know you don't mean this in the popularity contest sense of thinking, especially the long popularity contest of history. (right?)”

* For convenience, I prefer to treat David, Dan and Kevin as the same entity – QRS, the first initial of their surnames.

For the record, I think others view me as one of the lesser minds here, a mosquito, but thats OK with me, as I think it relates more to a lack of scholarly abilities, than my practical philosophical understanding.

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

For the record, I think others view me as one of the lesser minds here, a mosquito, but thats OK with me, as I think it relates more to a lack of scholarly abilities, than my practical philosophical understanding.

No, it's definitely your practical understanding. It's still on the wrong side of the Great Barrier.

PS. I like this Pye fellow. Most down to earth and realistic.

Don't worry, they even class women as "fellows" in academia land.


-

[David Quinn]

Pye,

DQ: . . . . they will still only end up as forgotten footnotes in the convoluted history of academia. Their names will be no more remembered than those medieval monks who slaved away anonymously in monastries arguing obscure theological points . . . . their work will seem just as archaic . . . . most of what it does now will be outdated in the years to come.

P: I am to understand from this that you don't mean lasting fame as a litmus of success too, right? That you mean longevity or notoriety as a measure of the thought's/thinkers worth, yes? I mean, I know you don't mean this in the popularity contest sense of thinking, especially the long popularity contest of history. (right?)

Yes, I was speaking from the point of view of the young person entering academia seeking fame and glory. I wasn't articulating my own view of things.

I'm sure you realize that longetivity and notoriety aren't reliable measures of the quality of a person's thought. Look at Mohammed, for example. He was a thinker of very low quality and yet here we are 1300 years later and millions of people still take him seriously. At the same time, thinkers of infinitely greater quality, such as Diogenes, Huang Po, and Weininger, are all but ignored.

To me, what matters is how much wisdom one's thoughts and actions express, how much they reflect the Truth, and how skillful they are in enlightening other people's minds. Everything else is meaningless.

DQ: How do you go about introducing students to the standard academic arguments and encouraging them to immerse themselves in a methodology that you personally don’t believe in? Are you forced to become a little underhanded and subtly encourage them to look beyond academia?

P: well, ah, maybe not so subtly :) I do things this way: we read primary texts (the works themselves) and leave all the pre-digested academic exegesis out the door. It becomes a thing between the students and the original philosophy itself. I try to make sure I am presenting thus-and thus's philosophy with the best understanding I have of it, answering all possible objections to it that are based upon misunderstanding. Once the understanding is relatively well-grounded, I start asking them to think their way past it, if they can. Then I'm in the role of seeing whether the chain of reasoning they present is of soundness. I point out where it is not. They keep trying; I keep listening, moving them from stuck places. That's really about all can get accomplished in the semester-frame, with well-heeled students drunk on the material world, anxious to death about their monetary futures.

I see. You're trying to inject a little philosophical appreciation into the minds of busy people who aren't really interested. What do you do when you come across someone who has serious interest and talent? Do you try to dissuade them from embarking on an academic career?

I think they think my class is some weird oddity about college, but really it is to this university's credit that two courses in philo are required for all. I complain along with them endlessly that most of the rest of their classes are teaching them to be little copy machines when it is my naive hope that philosophy can instead teach them to be thinkers.

Yes, it's sad that philosophy used to sit at the apex of university, regarded by all and sundry as the loftiest and most important of all subjects, and now it sits on the bottom of the heap, a laughing-stock the world over.

And we only have the academic philosophers and their sterile thoughts to blame for this.

Teachers can be pretty boring when they talk about pedagogy, but just this one thing seriously: right now the thing that is really starting to bug me (that didn't used to) is the supreme flaccidity with which young college students approach their values. These are either immoveable inheritances from upbringing (one would even think of tampering with them!), or they are the thin soup of "received diversity" that wouldn't dare to presume to state a value they have categorically. Look, I know all about the no-value in other ways of thinking, but this kind of thing I'm looking at is starting to seem like some sort of pathology. Just today in the philo of art how repetitious the offers to define were: like, art is anything you want it to be. And, some cultures might think thus and thus is art so that's good enough, etc. Gee it's great they know how to think like tolerant individuals, but they don't seem to understand they really have to recapture their redefined values out on the other side. They seem to think they have escaped this work altogether!

That's been my experience as well. Large slabs of consciousness are quickly disappearing from the face of the earth, due to things like postmodernism, feminism, political correctness, information overload, endless entertainment. etc. In many ways, we're slipping into a second Dark Age. It's a real worry.

DQ: Being passionate and solitary is not enough; without the shaping force of rationality it ceases to be philosophy and degenerates into art instead.

P: Yes, the rhetorical "entrails" I was hoping would scoop all this from the bottom up. I have seen though, David, the shaping force of rationality create some pretty clever, and even tricksy things. So I take it you have a certain shape and 'health' if you will, of rationality in mind, like the well-functioning variety assumed by a Socrates or Plato.

Well, Socrates, rather than Plato. In my view, the rot had already set in with Plato!

Rationality only begins to go astray when people have attachments to protect and they start creating no-go zones for their logical probings. This happens all the time in the world. Most people aren't able to exercise their reasoning with perfect freedom and fearlessness. It is a very rare skill, and either a sign of enlightenment or very powerful egotism.

Easy with the "degenerates." :) I'd wager that Dostoevsky saw things about human nature that no philosopher has ever reached with their best writing. That's what I mean about the "showing." It's all right there - in existence. Crazy as it sounds, it is exactly appearance I am interested in. I'm in this phase or something right now where everything seems so simple and completely evident, right there before one's very eyes. It's all there. I think I'm being closer to it with this story work than I have ever been in my best blow-hard philosophic expression, but that's just me.

I like Dostoevsky's work, but I've never considered him to be much of a philosopher. You seem to be refering more to exposing the "human condition" here, rather than awakening people's minds to the nature of Ultimate Reality. Is that right?

Are there any noteworthy distinctions to be made between the truth of causality as you see it, and the way of the pure "determinist" thinker? Sorry if you've been asked this before. I am just curious if you would like to make any distinctions.

I'm not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by "way of the pure determinist thinker"?

-

[NickOtani]

There are enough intelligent people here, Nick, such that I do not have to defend myself from your post, for their sake or mine.

Fine with me. Perhaps you should get a room with David.

bis bald,

Nick

[Lennyrizzo]

You give the impression that you believe you are on a one-man crusade against a faceless, evil world. It also suggests that you are not really giving anything we say much thought.

Do you really want Nick to consider your ideas more? You pissed him off, why should he? If you really care about Nick apologize for pissing him off, if he forgives you then there's a chance your many years of many words haven't been a total waste of time.

[NickOtani]

Here is a symptom of the worst of the academic mindset: you dismiss anyone who doesn't have a knowledge of your academically recognized references. It is the quality of a persons thought and ideas that are what counts in philosophy, not the fact that they might have read a bunch of books about what some academically-noted philosophers thought. Philosophy is about examining reality, not books.

I dismissed Ksolway because he was admonishing me for referring to obscure authors, like Plato and Aristotle. If someone doesn’t know these people but really wants to know who they are and what they said that was important, I wouldn’t dismiss them. I’m not meeting many people here who want to know about philosophy. They don’t want to be bothered with “academically-noted philosophers.” Yes, I dismiss these bigots the same as they dismiss “academically-noted philosophers.”

This is very strange behaviour. You've made up a quote which nobody here has said and then you dismiss it as though it were a load of rubbish .... ?!?

That’s not true. I copied and pasted exactly what was said and responded to it. Go back and look. Stop making false accusations. Perhaps you should admit to them and apologize, but then you don’t have enough honor to do that, do you?

If you want to challenge this 100% certain truth, then you need to provide compelling evidence which demonstrates that nothing exists at all and that experiences aren't happening.

No, I’m also a former college debater and current debate judge at high school tournaments, and I have paralegal training. I know who has the burden of proof, when a case is prima facie, and when a case has been refuted. You are just making more of a fool out of yourself with every post.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Jason]

--