My thoughts exactly. Those who haven't completely submitted to their absolute nothingness in the face of this vast universe are lowlife scumbags and are so inferior to us that they pale into utter insignificance. Luckily, we aren't so convinced of our self importance as they are, right Tord?Not that I disregard how painful it must be for someone who is so sure of his own importance as being to admit that he is nothing before the All, but when something is so obvious how can you deny it just becase you need to feel that you matter.
A=A
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Tord wrote:
Projects and Projection.
Unknown,
Experience.
The best teacher.
Experience.
The best teacher.
Experience
I trust my own mind.
Re: Ego and Self
Ego has 'infinite' relatability.sevens wrote:But, not if you attempt to understand your own ego.
I believe that in order to reach new frontiers, you must, know what you know.
self is the negation of completeness as reality.
how can you know what you know?
If the reality we are all aware of is unreal and the illusory automata,we, is false....How can we know of an absolute from our unknowableness.How can we even know whether it is illusion!!!???
But...we are of the absolute.
If we can not know what IS the truth,then perhaps we can establish a negative.
Again ,what is essential to thruth?All things are essential to thruth!
You can deny gods,but you can't escape them.
the day that I perceive that something does not come from me,is the day that I will reach for enlightenment.
ego and self can agree.
It remains that it is the I who so makes the world.
-
joel knoll
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:24 am
Some remarks on the arguments for Absolute Truth: first, they are all very reactionary and defensive. Why is this so? It would seem that the burden of proof is always on the Absolutist, because he is of greater ambition than the skeptic. Is this to his credit? Perhaps. There is no charisma like the devil's, and perhaps no one persuades so easily and completely. But he is the devil nonetheless: infinitely charming, but never trustworthy; fiercely intelligent, but mindless at last. Mythology has it that the devil was the first skeptic...
Some remarks on Skepticism: most Absolutist arguments regard skepticism and relativism first and foremost as a danger. It must be asked, however, whether anyone actually loses anything by the triumph of skepticism. If everyone was persuaded that "there is no truth but persuasion", what would the world really have lost? What would men have sacrificed? Would we really be anywhere else than where we are, with anything less than what we now have? Logically and dialectically, skepticism is invincible; psychologically and "existentially" (oh, I shudder to speak that word!) skepticism is impossible. But is it actually something to be feared? I think not. Any serious study of the history and nature of skepticism will discover that it is only a fascinating and frustrating detour, at the end of which the traveler arrives at the very place where he began: holding the convictions and making the assumptions that every healthy and competent person must make in order to get along in a world that can be neither proved nor refuted. Skepticism cannot be a conclusion to which one arrives, because it is necessarily deprived of any premises on which to build; it will not allow itself any assumptions or grounds. The virtue of skepticism, then, is this: it guards against tyranny, malice, and all wickedness that is supported by argument. For instance, it may be presumed that Mr. Quinn and Mr. Solway are men of good will; the trouble is that the very same dogmatic positions they take, have been taken by some of the most wicked men in history and have lent philosophical support to heinous crimes. Skepticism demands of every man a just account of his actions; it is by closing the door on the skeptical attitude that men fall into mindless routine and automatic obedience. It will be noticed, however, that the skeptic, for all his braggadocio, is not free from his own badgering. Authentic skepticism is not merely an attempt to pop the Absolutist balloon; if done in earnest, it is more like an attempt to keep everything, including itself, in check. The mature and authentic skeptic will regard his own position, too, with a good measure of doubt.
Some remarks on Skepticism: most Absolutist arguments regard skepticism and relativism first and foremost as a danger. It must be asked, however, whether anyone actually loses anything by the triumph of skepticism. If everyone was persuaded that "there is no truth but persuasion", what would the world really have lost? What would men have sacrificed? Would we really be anywhere else than where we are, with anything less than what we now have? Logically and dialectically, skepticism is invincible; psychologically and "existentially" (oh, I shudder to speak that word!) skepticism is impossible. But is it actually something to be feared? I think not. Any serious study of the history and nature of skepticism will discover that it is only a fascinating and frustrating detour, at the end of which the traveler arrives at the very place where he began: holding the convictions and making the assumptions that every healthy and competent person must make in order to get along in a world that can be neither proved nor refuted. Skepticism cannot be a conclusion to which one arrives, because it is necessarily deprived of any premises on which to build; it will not allow itself any assumptions or grounds. The virtue of skepticism, then, is this: it guards against tyranny, malice, and all wickedness that is supported by argument. For instance, it may be presumed that Mr. Quinn and Mr. Solway are men of good will; the trouble is that the very same dogmatic positions they take, have been taken by some of the most wicked men in history and have lent philosophical support to heinous crimes. Skepticism demands of every man a just account of his actions; it is by closing the door on the skeptical attitude that men fall into mindless routine and automatic obedience. It will be noticed, however, that the skeptic, for all his braggadocio, is not free from his own badgering. Authentic skepticism is not merely an attempt to pop the Absolutist balloon; if done in earnest, it is more like an attempt to keep everything, including itself, in check. The mature and authentic skeptic will regard his own position, too, with a good measure of doubt.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Because it makes you feel safe to think this?joel knoll wrote:Some remarks on the arguments for Absolute Truth: first, they are all very reactionary and defensive. Why is this so?
What would you know about skeptics?It would seem that the burden of proof is always on the Absolutist, because he is of greater ambition than the skeptic.
Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?Is this to his credit? Perhaps. There is no charisma like the devil's, and perhaps no one persuades so easily and completely. But he is the devil nonetheless: infinitely charming, but never trustworthy; fiercely intelligent, but mindless at last. Mythology has it that the devil was the first skeptic...
You sound like a politician.Some remarks on Skepticism: most Absolutist arguments regard skepticism and relativism first and foremost as a danger. It must be asked, however, whether anyone actually loses anything by the triumph of skepticism.
You are a politician! "What would be lost if truth was annihilated?" he asks. Funny shit.If everyone was persuaded that "there is no truth but persuasion", what would the world really have lost? What would men have sacrificed?
You are such a wanker, dude. You haven't doubted anything. You just flat out deny anything you can't figure out. Your long-winded Cartesian outpourings might fool idiots but they don't fool anyone here. Take it back to your high school English teacher.The mature and authentic skeptic will regard his own position, too, with a good measure of doubt.
My hat off to Mr. Knoll, who at least seams able to give some insight into the subject in question. That is not to say I agree with him, but at least he tries to use reason and build his arguments upon knowledge, and that is something many here can learn from.
And to take something he says of skepticism out of it's context:
But please keep such a thing as moral out of the discussion. This is a concept entirely invented by humans, and has no function outside our limited sphere.
And to take something he says of skepticism out of it's context:
Exactly!it will not allow itself any assumptions
But please keep such a thing as moral out of the discussion. This is a concept entirely invented by humans, and has no function outside our limited sphere.
endure...
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Absolutists can also be skeptics. It's just that they are not skeptical/doubtful about absolutely everything, since they have arrived at certainty about some things, after having first doubted them.Some remarks on Skepticism: most Absolutist arguments regard skepticism and relativism first and foremost as a danger.
A relativist/postmodernist is in fact an absolutist, in the sense that they tend to be doubtful about absolutely everything, including those things they should not be doubtful about. Except of course, they conveniently fail to doubt their own mistaken beliefs.
While I am an absolutist (with a website called theabsolute.com), I am skeptical about literally all scientific and empirical claims. I am also skeptical about all purely logical claims, until such time as I have examined them and resolved them to my satisfaction.
To my mind, people in such a world will have lost the will for greatness, genius, distinction, and immortality. The sharp knife of the mind will have been turned into a kind of rolling pin, which turns everything flat.It must be asked, however, whether anyone actually loses anything by the triumph of skepticism. If everyone was persuaded that "there is no truth but persuasion", what would the world really have lost?
When everything is flat, there is no point in going anywhere, since all places are the same. There are no valleys and mountain peaks. No stars to reach for, no pain to spur one forwards.
The English language of 100 years ago was far superior to what it is today, as is testified by literature and dictionaries from that period. Modern dictionaries are full of terms related to commerce, fashion, politics, property, and other general crudeties. We have already lost a great deal.What would men have sacrificed? Would we really be anywhere else than where we are, with anything less than what we now have?
Ideally, yes, skepticism, should not settle on any false absolutes. Unfortunately it has ended as the new religion which people accept blindly, without thought. The God of that religion is Science, and logic is the Devil.Skepticism cannot be a conclusion to which one arrives, because it is necessarily deprived of any premises on which to build; it will not allow itself any assumptions or grounds.
Last edited by Kevin Solway on Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality.That is not to say I agree with him, but at least he tries to use reason and build his arguments upon knowledge, and that is something many here can learn from.
Nor is knowledge the thing to count on;it is but the excrement of experience.
I would rather say: a damn advocate
To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit, have you actually tried it?
Example: One of the most controversial, and containg the least amount of final truth of all sciences may be psychology. Still I say that if you are ignoring it because of this, you are making a great mistake. What psychology tries to do is explain why we think the way we do. Perhaps if you were willing to aquire self-knowledge through this, you may find that you think the way you do not because it is right but because you were conditioned to. We're past tabula rasa here.
Example: Can you really claim you want to know the true fabrics of reality if you haven't the least idea what quantum mechanics is?
This is not absolutes, and I don't think science can provide any final answers either (just like philosophy can't), but I pick up pieces of the puzzle everywhere, and some of them can be found there.
Example: One of the most controversial, and containg the least amount of final truth of all sciences may be psychology. Still I say that if you are ignoring it because of this, you are making a great mistake. What psychology tries to do is explain why we think the way we do. Perhaps if you were willing to aquire self-knowledge through this, you may find that you think the way you do not because it is right but because you were conditioned to. We're past tabula rasa here.
Example: Can you really claim you want to know the true fabrics of reality if you haven't the least idea what quantum mechanics is?
This is not absolutes, and I don't think science can provide any final answers either (just like philosophy can't), but I pick up pieces of the puzzle everywhere, and some of them can be found there.
endure...
Tord,
you are living proof that science is bullshit. You are an organism capable of reasoning and perfection in logical understanding, yet you fall so short of the mark. You have been hoodwinked into accepting mediocrity and emotionalism, because thats what "makes life easy"
Pick up pieces here and there, make your muddled little puzzle, just as a child does.
you are living proof that science is bullshit. You are an organism capable of reasoning and perfection in logical understanding, yet you fall so short of the mark. You have been hoodwinked into accepting mediocrity and emotionalism, because thats what "makes life easy"
Pick up pieces here and there, make your muddled little puzzle, just as a child does.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I don't remember anyone saying that science is bullshit. People have only said that it is speculative, and its conclusions uncertain.Tord wrote:To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit, have you actually tried it?
Personally, I was trained as a scientist, and have a degree in science.
Are you assuming that someone doesn't understand quantum mechanics?Example: Can you really claim you want to know the true fabrics of reality if you haven't the least idea what quantum mechanics is?
And are you assuming that quantum mechanics has something to do with the fabric of reality?
Are you saying that you only think philosophy can't provide final answers, or are you certain that it can't.This is not absolutes, and I don't think science can provide any final answers either (just like philosophy can't),
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
tord:
sevens:
it isn't essential to know the purpose or reason of things.
They are begotten of eternity and our comprehension of time.
yes ,I believe an individual is vulnerable to connection with it.
If mankind had mistrusted all teaching it would long ago have embraced equity.
Tactually ,I destroy psychology.Example: One of the most controversial, and containg the least amount of final truth of all sciences may be psychology. Still I say that if you are ignoring it because of this, you are making a great mistake.
sevens:
Well, sevens,What purpose does A=A serve if it does not connect an individual with their own abstract mind?
Nature being the realm of abstraction.
it isn't essential to know the purpose or reason of things.
They are begotten of eternity and our comprehension of time.
yes ,I believe an individual is vulnerable to connection with it.
If mankind had mistrusted all teaching it would long ago have embraced equity.
tord:
"To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit, have you actually tried it?"
science diggs the bottomless pitt.All that we can relate exists.For all things are essential to truth.
Logic has different divisions and using each of them for its disclosural conclusion in the scheme of things seems almost like an art in itself.
reasoning is one of these divisions.
"To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit, have you actually tried it?"
science diggs the bottomless pitt.All that we can relate exists.For all things are essential to truth.
Logic has different divisions and using each of them for its disclosural conclusion in the scheme of things seems almost like an art in itself.
reasoning is one of these divisions.
Predictable answers from predictable minds. You try to channel the discussion into areas where you feel more comfortable, i.e. where your ignorance is more easily disguiesed as wisdom.
It's not difficult to see that Mr. Solway is not unfamiliar with retorics, but instead of using it to make things clear he seems to prefer dwelling in muddled waters.
When I read your posting Mr. Solway, I got this mental image of you sitting in a library with a large pile of books in front of you, trying to find this absolute truth you seem to need. You read the foreword in the first; no, no claim for the absoute truth there, toss it away, read the foreward in the second; no, no claim... guess you see where I'm going by now. If you wait for a source to that can provide you with all the answers, I fear you'll have to wait in vain. But of course there are some books that make this claim, and without exception they are very nice if one wants a laugh.
Anyway, I think prince said it best:
It's not difficult to see that Mr. Solway is not unfamiliar with retorics, but instead of using it to make things clear he seems to prefer dwelling in muddled waters.
No, no one used that particular word, but are we to reduce this discussion into mere semantics or will you instead try to understand what I'm saying and procede from there?I don't remember anyone saying that science is bullshit
Didn't I just made the point clear that I don't assume anything? But just for the sake of argument, how can I possibly have any ideas of how much any of you know about quantum mechanics? This is totally absurd! As for the second question, how much clearer can I express my opinion on this than I already have? IN THE QUEST FOR WISDOM I SEARCH EVERYWHERE!Are you assuming that someone doesn't understand quantum mechanics?
And are you assuming that quantum mechanics has something to do with the fabric of reality?
When I read your posting Mr. Solway, I got this mental image of you sitting in a library with a large pile of books in front of you, trying to find this absolute truth you seem to need. You read the foreword in the first; no, no claim for the absoute truth there, toss it away, read the foreward in the second; no, no claim... guess you see where I'm going by now. If you wait for a source to that can provide you with all the answers, I fear you'll have to wait in vain. But of course there are some books that make this claim, and without exception they are very nice if one wants a laugh.
That's all there is.pieces of the puzzle
Anyway, I think prince said it best:
Here we have the true spirit of the questing mind! And only here I would find it necessary to point out that I was being ironic.I don't know a lick about it, but I don't think I need to either.
endure...
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Tord wrote:
"To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit, have you actually tried it?"
In any case, Kevin wasn't making a semantic point. He was imply restating a basic view of this forum, which is that while science has its place in society - indeed, a very important place - it doesn't have the power to resolve philosophic issues.
It's not a difficult point to understand. But for some reason, you are having extreme difficulty with it.
"I don't think science can provide any final answers either (just like philosophy can't) ... '
It is an assumption on your part that philosophy cannot find final answers. You have no evidence for this. It is simply an article of faith, which underpins your own final answer.
In any case, knowledge of quantum mechanics - although interesting and stimulating on certain levels - cannot shed any light on the fabric of Reality. For the fact remains, the quantum realm is like any other empirical realm - it is inherently uncertain and could easily be an hallucination of some kind.
One has to mentally reach beyond science if one wants to truly understand the fabric of Reality. But not many people know how to do this, or are even aware that such a pathway exists. It is only for very rare individuals.
Agreed. Human psychology is an fascinating and important subject. Any philosophic thinker worth his salt is a skilled psychologist. It is particularly important to explore and understand the psychology of women, which I'm sure you would agree.
-
I'm trying to decide whether you are a liar, or just have a bad memory. You did indeed use the world "bullshit". You wrote:KS: I don't remember anyone saying that science is bullshit
T: No, no one used that particular word, but are we to reduce this discussion into mere semantics or will you instead try to understand what I'm saying and procede from there?
"To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit, have you actually tried it?"
In any case, Kevin wasn't making a semantic point. He was imply restating a basic view of this forum, which is that while science has its place in society - indeed, a very important place - it doesn't have the power to resolve philosophic issues.
It's not a difficult point to understand. But for some reason, you are having extreme difficulty with it.
You are deceiving yourself if you believe that you don't make assumptions. I can see many hidden assumptions which support your currrent outlook. Indeed, you expressed one of these assumptions above, when you wrote:KS: Are you assuming that someone doesn't understand quantum mechanics?
And are you assuming that quantum mechanics has something to do with the fabric of reality?
T: Didn't I just made the point clear that I don't assume anything?
"I don't think science can provide any final answers either (just like philosophy can't) ... '
It is an assumption on your part that philosophy cannot find final answers. You have no evidence for this. It is simply an article of faith, which underpins your own final answer.
Yet I can see that you don't seach for it in the only place it can be found - namely, in philosophic logic. You are very close-minded and evasive when it comes to this particular pathway.But just for the sake of argument, how can I possibly have any ideas of how much any of you know about quantum mechanics? This is totally absurd! As for the second question, how much clearer can I express my opinion on this than I already have? IN THE QUEST FOR WISDOM I SEARCH EVERYWHERE!
In any case, knowledge of quantum mechanics - although interesting and stimulating on certain levels - cannot shed any light on the fabric of Reality. For the fact remains, the quantum realm is like any other empirical realm - it is inherently uncertain and could easily be an hallucination of some kind.
One has to mentally reach beyond science if one wants to truly understand the fabric of Reality. But not many people know how to do this, or are even aware that such a pathway exists. It is only for very rare individuals.
Example: One of the most controversial, and containg the least amount of final truth of all sciences may be psychology. Still I say that if you are ignoring it because of this, you are making a great mistake. What psychology tries to do is explain why we think the way we do. Perhaps if you were willing to aquire self-knowledge through this, you may find that you think the way you do not because it is right but because you were conditioned to.
Agreed. Human psychology is an fascinating and important subject. Any philosophic thinker worth his salt is a skilled psychologist. It is particularly important to explore and understand the psychology of women, which I'm sure you would agree.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Prince wrote:
Quantum mechanics can't teach us anything about the nature of reality, but it's a fascinating subject nonetheless. Granted, it is only a notch or two above theology and counting angels on pins, but at least it does have some practical value. If nothing else, it has helped generate plenty of modern technology.
-
I think it's important to keep abreast of the latest scientific theories. Although science can't deal with profound issues, it can expand the mind in many ways and help challenge one's preconceived notions about various things. It has value.What is quantum mechanics, anyway? and why is it important to understanding reality.
I don't know a lick about it, but I don't think I need to either.
Quantum mechanics can't teach us anything about the nature of reality, but it's a fascinating subject nonetheless. Granted, it is only a notch or two above theology and counting angels on pins, but at least it does have some practical value. If nothing else, it has helped generate plenty of modern technology.
-