seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:22 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:49 am
Seeds, it is impossible to discuss anyone's mystical experience.
Nonsense!
Mystical experiences have been discussed in one form or another since humans arose on this planet.
I mean, what in the world do you think most religions are founded upon?
Belinda's reply: we can discuss the nature of mystical experiences, and I have done so.
Most religions are founded upon the need for groups of people to cooperate. That's to say, there is an immediate and pressing need at all times for people in society to adhere in some manner to a moral consensus, what's right and what's wrong.
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:49 am
I do recognise that you know what you know. Your experience is like when someone says they feel cold there is no sense in denying that they do so. This sort of knowing is called ' privileged access'. Unless my nervous system were to be connected to your brain-mind I cannot know what you know with respect to your private knowledge.
That’s quite true, Belinda.
However, isn’t the revealing and comparisons of our inner private knowledge (in the hope of mutual growth) the very purpose of forums such as this one?
Belinda's reply: I don't think so. We are comparing rational knowledge not mystical knowledge or knowledge about our personal feelings. Mystical feelings and other personal feelings are the province of the arts.There is an overlap with religious practice but many would call the overlap self -indulgence. Take, for instance, the wisdom that it's more blessed to give than to receive, and also that he who loses his life will redeem it; these wisdoms are counter to self indulgent perceived needs to have nice cosy safe feelings.
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:49 am
The sorts of knowledge that philosophers can discuss are about deductions e.g. mathematics, and about matters of empirical fact, e.g. the climate.
You can’t be serious, B.
Belinda's reply:One of my faults is that I am usually rather an earnest person and I have to check myself when small talk is called for.
Clearly, Plato was not discussing matters of empirical fact (empirical evidence) when he talked about “ideal forms” or the “cave allegory.” Nor was Kant discussing matters of empirical fact when he talked about the “noumenon” or the “categorical imperative.”
Therefore, according to you, neither one of those icons of philosophy were actually doing philosophy.
Would you like to rethink and restate your assertion?
Belinda's reply: metaphysics , that branch of metaphysics which is about what exists is not empirical investigation and is nevertheless considered to be philosophy. Ontology is largely deductive and may include much creative imagination.
While I don't decry your mystical experience, I do object to your confining your thought to dogmatic assertions that, because you had a mystical experience, therefor a supernatural supreme being exists. Plato believed in eternal and transcendent good. However Plato's belief can inspire everybody and does not depend upon individuals having the talent for mystical experience.
_______