GENIUS FORUMS

Victor,

DQ: Theology isn't my bag.

Victor: No, it's not. Nor is philosophy.

Academic philosophy, no. I tend to place academic philosophy in the same bracket as theology. From the perspective of the spiritual philosopher, academic philosophy does little more than count angels on a pin.

I can't really think of what would be your bag. Self-aggrandizing pontifications perhaps?..

For one thing, helping people break out of their tiny academic prisons, so that they can begin to experience Nature more realistically.

-

Unidian wrote:

DQ:The trouble is, you are using a particular ontology to make your thesis. So the whole process is incoherent from the start.

For example, the view that the Tao is beyond conceptualization rests on a particular ontological view of what the Tao is. It doesn't have any meaning without this ontological backing.

In what ontological category would you place the following statements?

Mu.

Don't know.

Buns.

Toilet brush.

Three pounds of flax.

Those are my descriptions of "ultimate reality." They are also those of historical Zen masters who recognize the trans-conceptual nature of reality.

I would call them reactions to your ontological view that ultimate reality is such that it is beyond human understanding.

Those Zen masters you mention probably had the same ontological view, but luckily not all of them. There were a few who were more courageous and really went to the root of things. They weren't content to egotistically splash about in play-Zen.

-

There's the "play-Zen" stuff again. Oh well...

It doesn't bother me. Trying too hard to refute that sort of thing would be very egotistical indeed.

vicdan wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:What is wrong with the definition of Reality being the culmination of all things that are real or in other words true?

What's wrong with that?.. Well, how about the fact that this statement is either circular or presupposes a certain specific perspective on epistemology and the nature of truth?..

Well it's certainly not circular. It's a simple definition. Reality is what's ultimately real. I'm not sure why this is so hard for your mind to grasp. I'll try address that in my last statement.

vicdan wrote:You act as if the last few centuries of philosophy never happened, the years which have given us some of the most brilliant philosophers of all time -- Kant, Hume, Spinoza, Quine, Carnap, etc.

I'm not acting like anything, and I really don't care too much for any of those philosophers. I like Nick Treklis' philosophy.

vicdan wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:We are all seeking to understand Reality in one way or another. It is what we as humans have been doing since we took our first steps. It's just a matter of fact that some people are better at it than others, and most will never have more than a vague conception of it.

hahaha. You should work as a stand-up philosopher. you are hilarious!

Oh I also forgot to add that some of us are in denial of this fact. Is it even funnier now?

vicdan wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:There is no distinction. When you realize what is false you are automatically and simultaneously realizing what is true.

No. You should have studies math better. oh wait, real philosophers don't care about math...

Well it's not that we don't care about it. It's just that we realize how ridiculous it is to use something as limited as math to uncover Absolute Truths. Logic is all one needs.

vicdan wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:When I realized my belief in Santa Claus was a false belief, I was also at the same time realizing that to not believe in Santa Claus is a true belief.

That's a trivial example having nothing to do with the point.

It's a perfect example. If it's too simple for you, then it's obvious you don't get the basics, and I don't think you ever will. The cult that is academia has you by the balls.

Nick Treklis wrote:Well it's certainly not circular. It's a simple definition. Reality is what's ultimately real.

Erm, yeah. And metal is whatever is metallic.

I'm not acting like anything, and I really don't care too much for any of those philosophers. I like Nick Treklis' philosophy.

i am sure -- but it's only because what you do is not philosophy, really.

In all fields of human endeavor, progress is a cooperative affair. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Whenever real knowledge, comprehension, progress are at play, there is great benefit to be derived from the thinking of people who came before us.

If you disdain learning from others -- from others' mistakes, if not from their triumphs -- this is a strong indication that what you are engaged is not pursuit of a given field, but empty-handed wankery. Which happens to be the case in your situation.

Oh I also forgot to add that some of us are in denial of this fact. Is it even funnier now?

Oh aye, indeed. You are bringing down the house.

Well it's not that we don't care about it. It's just that we realize how ridiculous it is to use something as limited as math to uncover Absolute Truths. Logic is all one needs.

Math is logic, you bloody idiot. And in sticking your fingers in your eyes and hollering at the top of your lungs, you merely further demonstrate that you haven't the faintest interest in actually understanding the subject, but rather in pursuing your pre-determined conclusions.

It's a perfect example. If it's too simple for you, then it's obvious you don't get the basics, and I don't think you ever will. The cult that is academia has you by the balls.

Oh, i see it now. By knowing Santa belief to be false, you have the non-Santa belief being true! Then you also get the non-anti-Santa belief being false, and not non-anti-Santa belief being true; etc, ad nauseam (which, incidentally, is how I feel when I read the mind-numbingly idiotic tripe of the sort you are dousing me with). Why, you could build an entire marvelous edifice of absolute truths just by adding a string of prefixes to a proposition!

Go play with lego blocks, kiddo -- and be to pick a simple set. You obviously have only the most rudimentary command of logic.

vicdan wrote:Erm, yeah. And metal is whatever is metallic.

Now we're getting somewhere!

vicdan wrote:If you disdain learning from others -- from others' mistakes, if not from their triumphs -- this is a strong indication that what you are engaged is not pursuit of a given field, but empty-handed wankery. Which happens to be the case in your situation.

I don't even have freewill, let alone have the ability to form conclusions without the support of the infinite chain of cause and effect.

vicdan wrote:Math is logic

Math uses logic, but it is not logic itself. HUGE difference.

vicdan wrote:Oh, i see it now. By knowing Santa belief to be false, you have the non-Santa belief being true! Then you also get the non-anti-Santa belief being false, and not non-anti-Santa belief being true; etc, ad nauseam (which, incidentally, is how I feel when I read the mind-numbingly idiotic tripe of the sort you are dousing me with). Why, you could build an entire marvelous edifice of absolute truths just by adding a string of prefixes to a proposition!

Go play with lego blocks, kiddo -- and be to pick a simple set. You obviously have only the most rudimentary command of logic.

Like I said, back to basics Victor, back to basics.