GENIUS FORUMS

geniuine wrote:I've read parts of "Wisdom of the Infinite" (by David Quinn) and it's very interesting, but I'd rather not fool myself into thinking that I truly understand it without making an effort at validating the material for myself

Good. You know how to avoid arrogance.

Are you cynical?

Yes, in the sense that I'm somewhat jaded, but I don't practise Cynicism (the school of philosophy). The cynical meaning of the sentence was not what I initially intended, but it was kind of funny.

Is that because everything is as one and there are no causes?

Although that is true, I was aiming for the definition.

I could say that things are a relationship of atoms

You get into murky water when you do that, though. Is an atom a thing? Is an electron?

Or, that things exist because of the relationship they have with other things (oneness).

That says that things don't have inherent existence. It is a denial of the truth of thingness, which I already agree with.

Absolute truths don't depend on a context. Meaning, they must be true in every context.

You misunderstood me. The word "thing" has multiple definitions, depending on how it is used. A true statement when thing is defined one way is false when it is defined in another.

When a bottle of shampoo says "experience is everything", as mine does, I sincerely doubt that this sentence means what Kant meant when he said the same thing.

So, should we just forget about it? I thought, one of the goals of philosophy was to understand such phenomenon.

Technically speaking, it's not a phenomenon, but noumena. I don't think forgetting about it is very helpful, since knowing what is impossible to know makes for an excellent bullshit detector.

So, are all the great philosophers grappling with the basics?

Yes. Aristotle's Metaphysics, for instance, was nothing more than a highly logical man trying to puzzle out how we see the world based on something as common as grammar. Really basic stuff.

I could also say: existence = appearance

So long as you keep in mind that existence is not Existence. An existent is an appearance, but Existence (the Totality) never appears. None of our senses can pick it up.

Can we discuss all of that PLEASE?

I'll give my conversational example.

Assume that height is cumulative:
A lamp is above the table.
The table is above the floor.
Therefore, the lamp is above the floor.

We know this is certain. The essence of truth is that this syllogism is true, and all other truth is relative to deductive certainties like this.

It has all the qualities that the rest of the forest or that the forest as a whole has.

This is where the analogy breaks down. The quality that the Totality has that its portions do not is unboundedness. Only if the whole forest was everything in existence would it have this quality: the Totality is Infinite.

I'm presuming that these habits (in question) are attachments?

In the loosest sense of the word. The argument against having wise habits would be pretty similar to an argument against breathing. Some major physiological change is necessary, like death or a suit of robotic armour.

Is enlightenment something that can be switched on and off?

Enlightenment is the absence of delusions, so any delusion turns off enlightenment. If you believe in Santa Claus or the importance of the number 23, your enlightenment is questionable.

Are there degrees, like in karate?

Yes, people do vary in the amount of delusions they have, so some are closer to enlightenment than others. However, perfect enlightenment requires no delusions whatsoever: even a single delusion is not enlightenment. You are either enlightened or not.

I heard that some people don't perceive a separation between themselves and another - the other is still them, but in another form or appearance.

Depending on the specifics, that can be one of several schools of thought. One possibility is solipsism.

This seems to undermine the purpose of philosophy. It's like saying or arguing that logic maybe false. Again, ...?

As I said, I'm not a trivialist. I have reasons not to be one, and you're pretty close to the mark here.

PS. I think I don't understand what the basics are...

I'm not even sure if there's anything in philosophy that isn't the basics. At the local university, none of the undergrad philosophy courses have prerequisites.

Trevor,

I've been lying and cheating. Mostly to myself. I'm arguing as if I know what I'm talking about, but the sad truth is that I don't. I mean, I do have some vague inkling of an idea, but it doesn't qualify as something which I can use to effectively reason with... I think I've been trying to set it up in such a way that it only seems like I understand what's going on, but all that really happens is you just end up sorta reasoning with yourself. I know that seems fucked up. It wasn't intentional. I didn't realize that this was what I've been doing, until now. Anyway, I feel so drained (I have to wake up in like 3-4hrs!).

Bye (I'll be back in a few days)

...I did really try, but in the wrong way. Sorry.

Fuck!!!!nwo 35y8nu43p2

I'll give you a tip..

Try not to use that word that starts with F.

It's not cool, or hip.

Haha, Dave. Not quite, but good try. :)

I went to the shitter to validate my sources, and it turns out it was a stick of Old Spice, not a bottle of shampoo:

Immanuel Kant's deodorant wrote: Contains odour fighting ingredients which deliver a fresh, clean scent and long lasting odour protection.
EXPERIENCE IS EVERYTHING! Go to oldspice.ca

Oh my GOD I'm a DIRTY FUCKING WHORE !