Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Nick_A »

Which do you believe is more important for a seeker of truth: answers or deepening the question?
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. ~ Einstein
Einstein could argue the question of what this is or having experienced humility can open to intuition in order to deepen the question.. I've noticed that old fashioned philosophy sought to deepen the question and its contradictions while modern philosophy provides answers and avoids the experience of the contradiction like the plague in favor of superficial resolution.

The objective value of pondering the questions of the heart is in their ability to open the mind and heart in order to bypass the superficial. The love of wisdom seeks to bypass the superficial.
“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ~ Soren Kierkegaard
It does seem like modern philosophy is content to devolve into a paltry mediocrity as it glorifies the superficial answers of the binary mind.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Walker »

Q: How else could electrons on either side of the galaxy be directly connected outside of the limitations of time and space other than by formless physicality?
A: Uh, who knows, whatever. But, here's some questions, some of them really deep.

Uh huh.

Integrity of philosophy is thus preserved.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Lacewing »

Lacewing wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 4:14 am Do you realize how full of crap you are?
Walker wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 11:57 am More blah, blah, blah.
So your answer is no. :D
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Walker »

Perhaps the prospect of overfeeding first turned wolves to the dog side.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by HexHammer »

Harbal wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 8:54 pm
HexHammer wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 11:29 pm Admissible proof that God exist!!
There is no proof of that, as you well know.
You don't understand very basic admissible proof, why you don't do your own lawsuits.

Thanks.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:32 am Does it help clarify the purpose of this thread?

https://www.northatlanticbooks.com/blog ... -question/
And the questions I received from those students was something very remarkable. I got back twelve sheets of paper, and on half of these sheets of paper there was something written in very small handwriting at the bottom of the page or over at the margins—and the center of the page was blank.
If you believe this, Nick, I think you're a sucker, the man is making it up. I think your problem is that you make heroes out of people like Plato, Simone Weil and this Needleman person and just regurgitate what they've said. There's nothing wrong with taking the ideas of others and using them as a springboard for your own but you tend to get obsessed with certain people and get completely stuck in a groove. There are one or two on the forum with much more original ideas than yours but you just dismiss them and keep on quoting mainly dead people. Are you even able to think for yourself or are you completely dependant on those you've put on pedestals.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Harbal »

HexHammer wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:19 pm ]You don't understand very basic admissible proof,
But I've got a pretty good instinct for telling when someone is full of crap, Hex.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:34 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:32 am Does it help clarify the purpose of this thread?

https://www.northatlanticbooks.com/blog ... -question/
And the questions I received from those students was something very remarkable. I got back twelve sheets of paper, and on half of these sheets of paper there was something written in very small handwriting at the bottom of the page or over at the margins—and the center of the page was blank.
If you believe this, Nick, I think you're a sucker, the man is making it up. I think your problem is that you make heroes out of people like Plato, Simone Weil and this Needleman person and just regurgitate what they've said. There's nothing wrong with taking the ideas of others and using them as a springboard for your own but you tend to get obsessed with certain people and get completely stuck in a groove. There are one or two on the forum with much more original ideas than yours but you just dismiss them and keep on quoting mainly dead people. Are you even able to think for yourself or are you completely dependant on those you've put on pedestals.
You could call Prof Needleman a charlatan but many will disagree:

http://www.jacobneedleman.com/about/

The whole point is that these ideas are not original. Modern secularism has influenced society to forget them in favor of arguing superficial secular goals. I may admire these people but am not obsessed with them. My concern is for the attitudes they are furthering which support the classic intent and value of philosophy for human "being."

Take your favorite Simone Weil for example. Have you noticed that what is often referred to as woman’s psychology is only secular indoctrination. Arguing about abortion, gender rights and social justice is considered female philosophy. Can you appreciate how offensive it is for a young woman who actually has felt Plato, who has read Book V1 of the Republic and is strirred by the Divided Line and inspired to objective contemplation? She would be rejected by modern Woman’s philosophy.

Suppose one young female student on this site reads one of my Simone Quotes and reads up on her out of curiosity. She may realize that there is more to a woman’s philosophic potential than arguing about gender rights. I would call that a good thing.

What good are new ideas if we are forgetting the perennial nature of old philosophy centered around the love of wisdom? That is what this thread is about. Can we respect the questions of the heart or are we doomed to just the perpetual argument about questions of the mind
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 7:28 pm You could call Prof Needleman a charlatan but many will disagree:
There you go again, Nick, distorting things out of proportion. The passage I quoted simply did not have the ring of truth about it, I seriously doubt his account of events. I'm not calling him a "charlatan", I don't know anything about him, I'm merely saying that no matter how much you admire someone you should still use your own judgement, nobody is faultless.
The whole point is that these ideas are not original. Modern secularism has influenced society to forget them in favor of arguing superficial secular goals.
Goals such as what?
Can you appreciate how offensive it is for a young woman who actually has felt Plato, who has read Book V1 of the Republic and is strirred by the Divided Line and inspired to objective contemplation? She would be rejected by modern Woman’s philosophy.
No I can't appreciate it. I have no idea what Book V1 of the Republic is about and I very much doubt if a significant number of young women have any idea either.
Suppose one young female student on this site reads one of my Simone Quotes and reads up on her out of curiosity. She may realize that there is more to a woman’s philosophic potential than arguing about gender rights. I would call that a good thing.
Did Simone not believe in gender rights?
Can we respect the questions of the heart or are we doomed to just the perpetual argument about questions of the mind
I don't know but I don't think people are any different to how they've always been. You seem to be saying we've lost something but the fact that Plato said what he did all that time ago suggests it has always been this way.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal
H: There you go again, Nick, distorting things out of proportion. The passage I quoted simply did not have the ring of truth about it, I seriously doubt his account of events. I'm not calling him a "charlatan", I don't know anything about him, I'm merely saying that no matter how much you admire someone you should still use your own judgement, nobody is faultless.
N: What is so odd about a prof asking a group of exceptional students about their important question? It seems very reasonable to me. It may be more appropriate to ask a regular kid of today who their favorite rap artist is but these were exceptional kids.

N: The whole point is that these ideas are not original. Modern secularism has influenced society to forget them in favor of arguing superficial secular goals.

H: Goals such as what?

N: Secularism concerns itself with life in Plato’s cave. It argues how life should be lived in Plato’s Cave. Those like Plato and Plotinus remind us that ultimate reality including human meaning and purpose doesn’t originate in Plato’s cave but at a level of conscious reality beyond the psychological confines of Plato’s cave. A secularist argues politics in the quest to bring about collective stability. Those whom Plato and Plotinus have philosophically moved know that without the awareness of human conscious potential on a large scale, collective stability is impossible other than through slavery.

N: Can you appreciate how offensive it is for a young woman who actually has felt Plato, who has read Book V1 of the Republic and is strirred by the Divided Line and inspired to objective contemplation? She would be rejected by modern Woman’s philosophy.

H: No I can't appreciate it. I have no idea what Book V1 of the Republic is about and I very much doubt if a significant number of young women have any idea either.

N: You are probably right but what of this minority who strive to be complete women and not just fashionable twerking machines serving the state through their buying habits and arguing about gender rights. I support this minority.

N: Suppose one young female student on this site reads one of my Simone Quotes and reads up on her out of curiosity. She may realize that there is more to a woman’s philosophic potential than arguing about gender rights. I would call that a good thing.

H: Did Simone not believe in gender rights?

N: As a social activist Simone supported the balance between obligations and rights.

As a Christian mystic she was aware of human obligations that transcended arguing rights
“One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights.” ~ Simone Weil
N: Can we respect the questions of the heart or are we doomed to just the perpetual argument about questions of the mind

H: I don't know but I don't think people are any different to how they've always been. You seem to be saying we've lost something but the fact that Plato said what he did all that time ago suggests it has always been this way.

N: Consider societal values and how they have changed. For example:

"The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." Malcolm Muggeridge

"The orgasm has replaced the Cross as the focus of longing and the image of fulfillment."
― Malcolm Muggeridge

Is this really progress or has the collective lost something? Is the denial of reality and glorification of the animal really a sign of human progress?
The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that all our questions of human reason and speculation combine into three questions: "What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?" (Critique of Pure Reason, 1787)
When critical thought cannot answer these questions and when they become Too intense, they become questions of the heart inviting a quality of contemplation which bypasses binary logic.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Dubious »

Nick_A wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:32 am Read this short explanation. Does it help clarify the purpose of this thread?
https://www.northatlanticbooks.com/blog ... -question/
Quote from the blog:

One of the most tormenting questions of our time, and of all times and cultures, has to do with our own human identity—what we are, or the question is sometimes simply, Who am I?  A more abstract version of it is, What is man?  What is a human being? A very personal version of it is, Who is this human being?  What am I?  Am I what I am told by my environment?  Am I my ethnic identity?  Am I my national identity?  Am I my sexual identity?  Am I my physical characteristics?  Am I the opinions which have come into my mind from hearing people speak, from television, from newspapers, from my peers?  Am I the desires to buy this, to have that, to own that, to succeed in that—desires which themselves may have been conditioned into me from outside?
…yes, we are clearly ALL of these things, as also mentioned in the blog, including many severe negatives not mentioned.

That “This is a great question of the heart, and a great question of all these traditions and spiritualities of the world”, amounts to nothing more than hyperbole, a philosophic attempt to mythologize our importance beyond context or what nature grants to any of its creations.

It’s a symptom of a consciousness gone rogue which cannot properly reflect upon itself. It’s a reminder of the class distinctions that prevailed in ancient and medieval societies. These plethoric “am I's” are intensely mundane. Where is the “wisdom” to be rinsed when ALL are so obviously true?

What are we really...with some exceptions? Clones of a novel between the bookends called “I”. Want wisdom? Start from the root and its lower levels of consciousness; only then will wisdom, not easily fooled by wordplay, negate any superficial facade of bogus mysteries we love to question ourselves with.

There is a mystery in Being overall but there is no special mystery in being Human.

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:19 pm
“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ~ Soren Kierkegaard
It does seem like modern philosophy is content to devolve into a paltry mediocrity as it glorifies the superficial answers of the binary mind.
K is one of those interesting philosophers I can vehemently disagree with and agree at the same time. So much of K is multi-directional as with much in Nietzsche. Perhaps it’s because of their nonchalant styles so opposite to the usual academic discourse that space for opposition to those views becomes apparent. I prefer philosophers who question their own opinions.

But where is the paradox in any of the points listed? I don’t see any! If it only exists in the realms of ceaseless speculation, an eternal question mark, it becomes useless. It follows that philosophy itself becomes useless if it continues to ask vain and useless questions.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 11:23 pm What is so odd about a prof asking a group of exceptional students about their important question? It seems very reasonable to me.
What is odd is his account of their response. The event may well have taken place but his description of it looks embellished to the point of implausibility. If you ask a group of kids to write something on a piece of paper I simply don't accept this is what any of them, let alone half of them, would do. How could you read this and have any confidence in anything else he says? :-
Needleman wrote:And the questions I received from those students was something very remarkable. I got back twelve sheets of paper, and on half of these sheets of paper there was something written in very small handwriting at the bottom of the page or over at the margins—and the center of the page was blank.
Nick_A wrote: Secularism concerns itself with life in Plato’s cave.
I would say that Christianity and, from what little I know of it, Islam puts people in "Plato's cave". Religion seems to be more about telling people how to interpret the shadows on the wall than about encouraging them to go out into the light and and see for themselves what's there. When you say "secularism" perhaps what you really mean is materialism.
but what of this minority who strive to be complete women and not just fashionable twerking machines serving the state through their buying habits and arguing about gender rights. I support this minority.
Why are you focusing on women? Just as many men are slaves to what's fashionable and argue about their rights. I don't understand why you are separating men and women.
Suppose one young female student on this site reads one of my Simone Quotes and reads up on her out of curiosity. She may realize that there is more to a woman’s philosophic potential than arguing about gender rights. I would call that a good thing.
You give the impression that you disapprove of gender rights.
As a social activist Simone supported the balance between obligations and rights./
As a Christian mystic she was aware of human obligations that transcended arguing rights / One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights.
Not everyone wants to live their life according to the thoughts of Simone Weil. You seem to be criticising people for not breaking out of their preconceptions and then criticising them for not letting themselves be told what to think by people like Simone Weil.
"The orgasm has replaced the Cross as the focus of longing and the image of fulfillment."
― Malcolm Muggeridge
The disparagement of the orgasm by a man whose facial expression gave the impression that he was constantly experiencing one seems odd. I'm sorry, Nick, Malcolm Muggeridge was an odious little twerp and bringing him into the discussion can only undermine your case.

I still don't really understand your condemnation of "secularism", however, if you were to replace it with "materialism" then I would say yes, far too many people are far too obsessed with it.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Are we alone in the Universe
Maybe Maybe Not Who Knows

Who am I
I Am Me

Why do we live
Because We Can

Why do we suffer
Because We Can

Is death the end
Yes It Is The End

Why is there evil
Free Will Basically

What can we hope for
Painless Eternal Death

What can we know
Only Knowledge

What ought we to do
About What Exactly

How should we live
Only Positively So
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by HexHammer »

HexHammer wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 9:14 am
Harbal wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:44 pm
HexHammer wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:19 pm ]You don't understand very basic admissible proof,
But I've got a pretty good instinct for telling when someone is full of crap, Hex.
No, but you will see in less that 5 years. I am many things, but not a liar.

If you actually pulled your head out of your ass, you would see I ALWAYS tell the truth, even when I know all you ignorants goes crybaby on me and roasts me for months. I'm not as foolish as you the ONLY thing you do is making snarky remarks and flame, that's the only 2 things in your life here!
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophy and the Great Questions of the Heart.

Post by Harbal »

HexHammer wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 9:15 am the ONLY thing you do is making snarky remarks and flame, that's the only 2 things in your life here!
At least I do it in a language in which I'm competent.
Post Reply