poison of the heart: ramblings of a nihilistic egghead

[Tord]

You sir, have insulted me. When you claim I dismiss permanent truth out of hand you quite clearly imply that I'm an idiot. I don't even dismiss religion out of hand! I have never formed any ideas of truth (whatever that may be) a priori. I don't even accept Kant's idea of a priori knowldedge. You say yourself Mr. Quinn, that it would be a mistake for a foolish person to form any idea of the completeness of his knowledge (I'm paraphrasing), how do you know that you are not stupid? I'm not at all implying that you are, but neither do I have any evidence to the contrary, so there we are, trapped in a nice circular argument.

And to dismiss empirical knowledge out of hand, is just taking a short cut past a problem that has plagued philosophers since the dawn of time. I need you to provide some evidence on this one for me, because I will not just accept it out of hand (yes, it's getting tiresome by now). And I'm almost tempted to ask you, if not subscribing to Kierkegaards theory that objective truth can't be communicated, to provide one permanent truth, but that would be asking too much.

Neither can I possibly fathom your complete discarding of all scientific knowledge. I know that science doesn't offer any complete knowledge (perhaps being to smart to make such a claim), but I can't imagine my intellectal development would have been what it is if it weren't for my reading in, say, psychology, philosphy, religion/comparative mythology etc. But this claim seems so absurd, that you may have expressed yourself a bit unclear. The distinction you need to make here is accepting what you learn in school without fitting it into a larger frame of reference, i.e. making the mistakes most specialist in a given subject tend to do, or simply to ban every science from the start. That smacks a bit of christianity to me.

And to think someone would utter a word like ideology in this place of higher wisdom, I certainly wouldn't have expected.

[Blair]

Another pretentious wannabe with an axe to grind.

This is just the beginning, Tard.

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

You sir, have insulted me. When you claim I dismiss permanent truth out of hand you quite clearly imply that I'm an idiot. I don't even dismiss religion out of hand!

I didn't say that you were dismissing it out of hand, only that it would be mistake to do so.

I do sense a negative attitude in you towards the concept of truth, but hopefully it's something you can overcome.

I have never formed any ideas of truth (whatever that may be) a priori. I don't even accept Kant's idea of a priori knowldedge. You say yourself Mr. Quinn, that it would be a mistake for a foolish person to form any idea of the completeness of his knowledge (I'm paraphrasing), how do you know that you are not stupid? I'm not at all implying that you are, but neither do I have any evidence to the contrary, so there we are, trapped in a nice circular argument.

Well, that's a big question to answer. But the bottom line is, I know that I am not stupid because I am capable of recognizing A=A.

And to dismiss empirical knowledge out of hand, is just taking a short cut past a problem that has plagued philosophers since the dawn of time. I need you to provide some evidence on this one for me, because I will not just accept it out of hand (yes, it's getting tiresome by now).

I don't dismiss empirical knowledge out of hand. I was simply expressing the truth that empiricism only deals in provisional theories and tentative speculation. Science has an important role to play in human life, but it doesn't have the power to deal with the great philosophic issues of life.

And I'm almost tempted to ask you, if not subscribing to Kierkegaards theory that objective truth can't be communicated, to provide one permanent truth, but that would be asking too much.

We have just touched on a permanent truth - namely, that knowledge can never be discovered through science. This will always be true, no matter how advanced science becomes.

Neither can I possibly fathom your complete discarding of all scientific knowledge. I know that science doesn't offer any complete knowledge (perhaps being to smart to make such a claim), but I can't imagine my intellectal development would have been what it is if it weren't for my reading in, say, psychology, philosphy, religion/comparative mythology etc.

I agree that science can be philosophically stimulating, but that is about all it can do. It can stimulate a person to ask the bigger questions, but it can never resolve them.

And to think someone would utter a word like ideology in this place of higher wisdom, I certainly wouldn't have expected.

One of the biggest ideologies going around at the moment is the categorical belief that Ultimate Truth cannot be known by the human mind. It is amazing how fanatical people are about this belief, despite the lack of evidence. It's become the modern religion.

-

[Kitoak]

Tord, even I don’t dismiss the thoughts of children, sometimes the simple and naïve is a wonderful way at looking at a old thing a new way.

For example, A child sometimes doesn’t understand the concept of talking on a phone, to have a conversation that requires verbal communication, and often if you use closed question the child will nod and not say anything at all. If an adult see this, they tell the child.. “say something” the child will then response with “something” the person on the other end of the phone is totally lost! When in reality it makes perfect sense to any child.

We then must realize the error of our ways, and learn to correct them, but often we fall to this assumption thinking and become a lemming to the ways of the rat race we live in.

So even though childish is as some of the form appears, some of those thoughts can teach us that may be we are lemmings and should try and find a different way of expressing ourselves. Granted I don’t really think name calling and rants will truly solve any truth thoughts, those are a product of something else.

Last, I too was somewhat muddled by the name of this form, and found that the form wasn’t really for gensises but for those that aspire to greater thoughts, thus my comment on being illuminated by the flames of hell. But it does make for fun bantering along the way. Don’t take life so seriously, enjoy what you can.

[Tord]

"I do sense a negative attitude in you towards the concept of truth"? How can you possibly draw such a conclusion Mr. Quinn? Is it simply that you feel uncomfortable with the idea that you never will know it? Yes, yes, I hear you claim to have solved all the questions in the known (and possibly unknown) universe, and fear it is hopeless to make you see how utterly wrong you are. Because whatever I would argue, you can only point to my lack of understanding of what it is like to be omniscient. It reminds me very much of Hans Otto's argument that no non-christian could make any assumptions regarding faith because they themselves didn't belive.

So when I tell you that green men live on the moon, and you deny this, I can just point out that you doesn't understand it, so ipso facto you can have no reason to claim otherwise. And, smirking, I would add: "but hopefully it's something you can overcome."

But wait, it gets better; "...I was simply expressing the truth that empiricism..." I wont even bother with the argument itself, but only say that with this very convenient way of establishing a platform of truth, how can we possibly make any progress here? It's actually very simple, and pay close attention here, something doesn't automatically becomes a truth just because you belive (mark choice of word here) so. This is even worse than Descartes.

And further: "...knowledge can never be discovered through science". Well, that's settled then! But I wonder how you really view scince, because "it doesn't have the power to deal with the great philosophical issues of life". I should hope not. If you start mixing the two things together you will only end up like Einstein. Would you like it better if scientists interpret their findings in a philosphical framework?

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

I do sense a negative attitude in you towards the concept of truth"? How can you possibly draw such a conclusion Mr. Quinn?

I have a nose for these things. I detected it in you straight away. And you have since confirmed it by saying, in the A=A thread, that:

"Among all this absurd belief in total, final, and definitive truth, I'm starting to like unknown's gnostic ramblings more and more."

Case closed, I should think.

Is it simply that you feel uncomfortable with the idea that you never will know it? Yes, yes, I hear you claim to have solved all the questions in the known (and possibly unknown) universe, and fear it is hopeless to make you see how utterly wrong you are. Because whatever I would argue, you can only point to my lack of understanding of what it is like to be omniscient.

I don't operate in that manner. If you disagree with a point I am making, all you have to do is provide some convincing reasons and I will listen.

But wait, it gets better; "...I was simply expressing the truth that empiricism..." I wont even bother with the argument itself, but only say that with this very convenient way of establishing a platform of truth, how can we possibly make any progress here?

I do not understand your question. How does articulating truths impede progress? It could only impede progress if it is your goal in life to remain ignorant and unconscious.

It's actually very simple, and pay close attention here, something doesn't automatically becomes a truth just because you belive (mark choice of word here) so.

I agree with that. Accordingly, I have a very strict criteria of what constitutes a truth, namely: Something is only "true" if it is incapable of being falsified by either empirical evidence or logical reasoning. In other words, a truth can never cease being true, no matter what the circumstances. This is what distinguishes it from provisional theories, such as those found in science.

And further: "...knowledge can never be discovered through science". Well, that's settled then! But I wonder how you really view scince, because "it doesn't have the power to deal with the great philosophical issues of life". I should hope not. If you start mixing the two things together you will only end up like Einstein. Would you like it better if scientists interpret their findings in a philosphical framework?

No, I would not. In fact, I would like them to put a stop to it altogether. They are simply not qualified. Nothing is more embarassing than to watch scientists articulate what they think are the philosophical implications of their work. Their musings, without exception, are juvenile. It's like trying to watch hairdressers attempting to philosophize.

-

[Tord]

Let me start with the beginning. I didn't know exactly what this forum was about when I joined. I presumed, wrongly as it seems, that it was a place for people who thought different than others, and sought a place were they could, not necessarily with likeminded but at least answer-driven people, discuss and get new ideas. But from what I have seen so far it's mostly people who have made their mind up about everything, clubbing people in the head with their truth, who in turn... ad nauseam.

Apparently this is just me, but the more I learn the more I understand that I don't know. I have problems with most truths you seemingly take for granted, the problem being that so many things don't fit nicely together, causing the paradoxes I always seem to face when following an idea that initially I thought could bring me closer to the aspired knowledge.

When you, Mr. Quinn, don't see any problems with "...I was simply expressing the truth...", then I guess you have no idea where I'm aiming with my arguments. If we were talking about an absoulute truth this would indeed not impede progress, and if you have no problems at all with flinging these left and right, I don't know if we can take this discussion any further.

I have a very strict criteria of what constitutes a truth, namely: Something is only "true" if it is incapable of being falsified by either empirical evidence or logical reasoning. In other words, a truth can never cease being true, no matter what the circumstances. This is what distinguishes it from provisional theories, such as those found in science

Some points:
1. Why do you mention empirical knowledge at all, when you previously discredited it totally.

2. Can a truth really be falsified?

3. If science dogmatically claim to, beyond any doubt, know the truth, would you then belive it? Or put in another way, if you express doubt you are wrong, but if you claim total knowledge you are obviously right. Many has made this claim before you, Mr. Quinn, and as of yet none of them has been right. Again; you can't belive me to accept something just because you seem to be certain if it.

[unknown]

Quinn is my puppet!.

[Tord]

Then why can't you make him see further than the tip of his nose?

[Kevin Solway]

But from what I have seen so far it's mostly people who have made their mind up about everything, clubbing people in the head with their truth, who in turn... ad nauseam.

If you don't agree with this type of discussion, then why do you participate in it, by putting forward a whole stream of things you believe to be true, and attempting to "club people in the head with them".

For example: "You remain victims to the rest of their teachings. Carved into your feeble minds."

To be consistent, you should stick to asking questions.

[Tord]

I participate in the hope of learning something. Isn't that why you are all here? Or do you try to make gurus of yourselves and get lots of followers to feed your weak self esteem? And, no, Mr. Solway, that wasn't aimed at you personally.

What I will aim at you is the question: The only way I can interprete your statement is that knowledge is either total or non existant, is this correct? For you do see that there is a position between having "...made up their mind about everything" and not being claiming knowledge of any facts at all?

Just to examplify: There are no gods. For me that's a fact as good as it gets. That is total and absolute, and everyone who claims differently is wrong.

There are also other things I regard as facts, but in comparisment to the things I don't know they are very few indeed.

And I do like like to ask questions. That is also a fact.

[unknown]

Hi Tord,

The best way to learn about yourself is be a mirror. Just show people's own babbling without your context twisting it.

Anyone reacts to others opinion can only express his opinion.

Every one complains here that what i say is obvious things and i repeat in loop.

The funny thing is all they are doing is the same with more labels except they think they say something "new" and something profound.

Anyone thing who says something is a fool.

peace
unknown

[Kevin Solway]

I participate in the hope of learning something. Isn't that why you are all here?

I am here primarily to teach.

Or do you try to make gurus of yourselves

A guru is a teacher of great truths. Everyone should try to make themselves a guru.

and get lots of followers

True gurus don't seek followers, but they seek people who they can help learn for themselves.

to feed your weak self esteem?

A true guru doesn't have weak self esteem.

What I will aim at you is the question: The only way I can interprete your statement is that knowledge is either total or non existant, is this correct?

Rather, I would say that you either know something for certain, or you don't really know it at all. Either you know something for sure, or you are at best making an educated guess. Philosophy is about knowing things for sure, while science is about making educated guesses.

When it comes to Absolute Truth, either a person knows it for certain, or they don't know it at all. For example, you can't partially know that A=A. Either you know it or you don't.

there is a position between having "...made up their mind about everything" and not being claiming knowledge of any facts at all?

It is possible for a person to know some facts, but not others. For example, they might be absolutely certain that 1 + 1 = 2, but they might be uncertain about Absolute Truth/God, etc.

It is good if a person can be clear about what they know for sure (ie, with absolute certainty), and what they don't.

Just to examplify: There are no gods. For me that's a fact as good as it gets. That is total and absolute, and everyone who claims differently is wrong.

It is certainly possible to define "gods" in such a manner that it would be logically impossible for them to exist.

But if a powerful alien created our observable universe for a school science project, or somesuch, some people here on earth might consider that he qualifies as a kind of "god". Do you know for sure that this scenario is impossible?

[Jamesh]

The only way I can interprete your statement is that knowledge is either total or non existant, is this correct?

The QRS are fundamentalists. That is they have decided that they know enough and are incapable of taking more refined knowledge in.

In some ways however they are correct, their 5 or so key tenents are vital to wisdom. Everything is caused and interconnected being the two main ones, but they retain illusions when they speak of existence/emptiness and assign values to masculinity and feminity.

Why are they like this? Because, like fundamentalism, enlightenment is a fantasy that rests completely on a self-assurity of ultimate knowledge, therefore nothing can be allowed to get in the way of this surety.

[unknown]

You either believe(know) or not believe(not knowing) truth.

[Kevin Solway]

they retain illusions when they . . . assign values to masculinity and feminity.

You are here assigning value to not assigning values to masculinity and femininity, by saying that it is inferior to do so. Are you saying that it's ok for you to assign values, but it's not alright for us to do so?

[unknown]

kevins is a fool along with quinn and drowden.

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

Let me start with the beginning. I didn't know exactly what this forum was about when I joined. I presumed, wrongly as it seems, that it was a place for people who thought different than others, and sought a place were they could, not necessarily with likeminded but at least answer-driven people, discuss and get new ideas. But from what I have seen so far it's mostly people who have made their mind up about everything, clubbing people in the head with their truth, who in turn... ad nauseam.

I think you're being a touch over-sensitive here. Yes, there are a lot of collisions on this forum, but most of us are pretty open-minded and questioning. If you say something that is intelligent and well-reasoned, we will listen to you.

I grant that we don't suffer fools gladly. So just make sure that your points are indeed intelligent and well-reasoned, and there'll be no problem.

Apparently this is just me, but the more I learn the more I understand that I don't know. I have problems with most truths you seemingly take for granted, the problem being that so many things don't fit nicely together, causing the paradoxes I always seem to face when following an idea that initially I thought could bring me closer to the aspired knowledge.

Well, let's be more specific. What is an example of a truth I hold that you have problems with?

When you, Mr. Quinn, don't see any problems with "...I was simply expressing the truth...", then I guess you have no idea where I'm aiming with my arguments. If we were talking about an absoulute truth this would indeed not impede progress, and if you have no problems at all with flinging these left and right, I don't know if we can take this discussion any further.

Be specific. Are you saying that it is possible for science to uncover truths which are timeless and absolute?

DQ: I have a very strict criteria of what constitutes a truth, namely: Something is only "true" if it is incapable of being falsified by either empirical evidence or logical reasoning. In other words, a truth can never cease being true, no matter what the circumstances. This is what distinguishes it from provisional theories, such as those found in science

Tord: Why do you mention empirical knowledge at all, when you previously discredited it totally.

I was emphasizing the discreditation. In other words, I was making the point that scientific theorizing lacks the power to falsify, or even cast doubt upon, a philosophical truth. It is one of the reasons why philosophical truths are so magnificent and so exhilarating.

Can a truth really be falsified?

I said above that it can't be falsified. It can certainly be tested - in the laboratory of pure logic - but it will always pass the test every time. That is precisely what gives it the lofty status of a "truth".

If science dogmatically claim to, beyond any doubt, know the truth, would you then belive it?

No. Quite the opposite, in fact. I would know that it is fooling itself.

Any theory which depends on empirical evidence for support will always be provisional and uncertain. There can be no exceptions to this. This is because we have no way of knowing for certain that what we perceive through our senses isn't an hallucination of some kind. We can never get around this, no matter how advanced science becomes. Science will always be hampered by this limitation.

Recogning this truth, and others like it, is very important for one's philosophical development. Rejecting them out of hand simply because they conflict with one's emotional attachment to "open-mindedness" is stupid.

Or put in another way, if you express doubt you are wrong, but if you claim total knowledge you are obviously right. Many has made this claim before you, Mr. Quinn, and as of yet none of them has been right.

Be honest, you don't know this. You openly boast that you are a man of ignorance, so how could you possibly know that every person in history who claimed to have known the Truth has been wrong? That is a very silly claim to make.

The fact is, there have been quite a few wise men in history who have comprehended the Truth - e.g. Diogenes, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Huang Po, Kierkegaard, etc.

Again; you can't belive me to accept something just because you seem to be certain if it.

No one is asking you to do this.

-

[Tord]

Over a short period of time I have been accused of: Going out of my way to avoid being the target of someones argument, of being close-minded, of dismissing truth out of hand, of a negative attitude towards the concept of truth, of being over-sensitive etc.

The way you seem to argue is to at the same assign opinions to others that they never claimed to hold, and to make the opinions they do hold null and void by stigmatizing the person who utters them. It makes a discussion very easy on ones part if you have decided that the person you talk is close-minded, no? For someone who prides themselves of their logic this really does no credit to them.

It should be obvious that any attempt to interpret my opinions is at your own risk, and always says more of you then it does of me. You put meanings into things that reflects your own prejudice. That has always been the way of the ignorant

I don't want to become repetetive, but I find it strange to hear that just a claim to knowledge is enough to accept that it is so. As Mr. Solway says he is here to teach, and as "a guru is a teacher of great truths" this is perhaps how he views himself?
But why this urge to teach? Should we simply accept your motives to be wholly altruistic, or, more likely, that you enjoy the feeling of being King of the Fools. Having a guru means having somone to the thinking for you, and, for me, that's no way towards enlightenment. That is of course not to say that one shouldn't listen to advise of someone who has knowledge or insight, but I will never accept anything out of hand.

And when Mr. Quinn mentions Jesus, Buddha, and Kierkegaard as examples of wise men, he just embarrases himself. I know I make an easy target of myself not backing those opinions with arguments, but this is neither the time nor the place.

Quote:
What I will aim at you is the question: The only way I can interprete your statement is that knowledge is either total or non existant, is this correct?


Rather, I would say that you either know something for certain, or you don't really know it at all. Either you know something for sure, or you are at best making an educated guess.

You're missing the point here Mr. Solway. What I meant with total knowledge is the knowledge of all things, not complete knowledge of one aspect of the whole. So I'll repeat my question; is knowledge total or non-existant? If your answer is yes, then you can ignore anyone claiming to know the truth of one thing, e.g. as I did concerning the reality of gods. But regarding this you proved my point exactly. Even when we are certain we know the truth you can always make an abusurd explanation that it's impossible to disprove. This I also can do with any truth you post, so perhaps I'm right in saying that we never can be absolute sure after all?

And I have serious problems with A=A, but that have to wait til another time.

[DHodges]

And when Mr. Quinn mentions Jesus, Buddha, and Kierkegaard as examples of wise men, he just embarrases himself.

Who, then, would you put forth as an example of a wise man?

[Tord]

In the meaning of knowing "all the truth", no one, as is obvious from my statements. Most often I find a few people who have some opinions that make me think, in each of the subjects I've studied (e.g. Joseph Campbell in comparative mythology), but these are not necessarily intelligent or intellectual individuals.
The problem is that none of them have a broader understanding of reality.

But to mention a few persons I've found to at least have some interesting ideas; Platon, Nietzsche, and Lovecraft immediately leaps to mind. But that is as far as it goes, I have no need for a leader or guru.

"As wolves among sheep we have wandered"

[Kevin Solway]

I find it strange to hear that just a claim to knowledge is enough to accept that it is so.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that mere claims to knowledge should be accepted.

Having a guru means having somone to the thinking for you

I have explained that a true guru is not someone who does anybody elses thinking for them. Rather, he is someone who helps and stimulates people to think for themselves.

And when Mr. Quinn mentions Jesus, Buddha, and Kierkegaard as examples of wise men, he just embarrases himself.

Are you sure that you understand those men sufficiently to dismiss them?

What I meant with total knowledge is the knowledge of all things, not complete knowledge of one aspect of the whole.

It's not possible to have knowledge of all the individual things in the Universe, since the number of things is infinite. Your brain would simply not be large enough.

But you can know the basic processes and principles of the Universe - the philosophic/logical ones, rather than the scientific/speculative ones.

Even when we are certain we know the truth you can always make an abusurd explanation that it's impossible to disprove. This I also can do with any truth you post

Regarding truths in the empirical realm, it is possible to offer alternatives that cannot be disproven. But this is not the case in the logical or philosophic realm. David has already provided examples of truths that cannot possibly be disproven, such as the truth that "there are things (appearances)", and the truth that "A=A" (a thing is identical to itself).

so perhaps I'm right in saying that we never can be absolute sure after all?

Concerning purely logical truths, you can be absolutely sure.

[Tord]

Quote:
And when Mr. Quinn mentions Jesus, Buddha, and Kierkegaard as examples of wise men, he just embarrases himself.


Are you sure that you understand those men sufficiently to dismiss them?

Are you sure that you know them sufficiently? But that's how it goes, when somone disagrees with Mr. Solway it must be due to their ignorance.

No, that wasn't supposed to be constructive.

[unknown]

All prophets are EVIL!.

[Matt Gregory]

What is "evil", Unknown? Something you dug up out of some tomb somewhere?

You thief!