Just another belief system.

[PeteJ]

In the spirit of "Science is not a belief system" (which is to be understood as "experience is foundational") it seems that you got that exactly backwards.

Got what backwards? Are you speaking to me?

The ratio of scientific enquiry to philosophical dogmatism is not very healthy on this forum.

Scientific enquiry is never going to take up much room on a philosophy forum where we have to take the scientific data for granted. Philosophical dogmatism should take up no room at all.

The non-dual philsophy of the Upanishads was endorsed by Schrodinger, who promoted in his writing for forty years. As it is grounded in experience it is considered a science and it meets Popper's conditions. if we have not had the experience to verify it then for us it is a theory, and if we believe the theory than for us it is a belief system. But it is not a belief system because all its claimed may be experimentally tested.

We may not believe this but if do not believe then we have a lack-of-belief system, for we cannot prove our lack of belief is justified.

If we take a scientific or philosophical approach we will not believe either way but will investigate and establish the facts.

[Skepdick]

Scientific enquiry is never going to take up much room on a philosophy forum where we have to take the scientific data for granted.

So make up your mind. Are you taking experience for granted or not?

Philosophical dogmatism should take up no room at all.

It's taking up an entire forum.

if we have not had the experience to verify it then for us it is a theory, and if we believe the theory than for us it is a belief system. But it is not a belief system because all its claimed may be experimentally tested.

Which is why I said "science is not a belief system". The exact same claim you are making for "non-dualism"

If we take a scientific or philosophical approach we will not believe either way but will investigate and establish the facts.

How do you establish any "facts" without empiricism?

The non-dual philsophy of the Upanishads was endorsed by Schrodinger, who promoted in his writing for forty years. As it is grounded in experience it is considered a science and it meets Popper's conditions.

EXACTLY!

Yet on the other thread you were clearly arguing that Humanism and its promotion of science/empiricism is DIFFERENT to Non-dualism.

What exists? EVERYTHING! We study EVERYTHING via experience (a.k.a science).

The moment non-dualism individuates itself from EVERYTHING - it defeats itself.

[Dontaskme]

And, in the spirit of Philosophy Now, the statement requires no supporting rationale, facts, or examples.

The above statement does not make any sense.


To make any statement is to make a claim to know something.
I'll give you one example: Nonduality is a concept known even though the knower of the 'concept known' is like the finger trying to point to itself, it can't point to itself. So for a concept to be known there has to be a belief in that concept. No belief, no thing known.
Knowledge is belief. To know a concept is to believe.

The world of belief can be compared to a dream. It is a conceptual mind map that has nothing to which it can be compared since it is the sense of self's only reference. Conceptual thought and it's persona can go no further than that understanding simply because they have no reality outside of that arena. Nonduality appears as duality to the mind, the belief is here and not here, the mind can wipe itself and the believer away, just as it can create the self and the believer.

In the same context it takes a a thorn to remove a thorn.

.

[PeteJ]

It seems to me, Skepdick, that you make no attempt to understand what I'm saying and instead twist the words so you can argue against views I don't hold. I'm struggling to grasp what your posts are about or the point you're trying to make. I feel I have no option but to ignore them. I would rather meet objections and reply to questions, but not in cases where someone is just running interference since it takes too much time.

[PeteJ]

And, in the spirit of Philosophy Now, the statement requires no supporting rationale, facts, or examples.

The above statement does not make any sense.

I think Walker was being critical of the standards of rigour here, and I find his comment justified.

[Skepdick]

It seems to me, Skepdick, that you make no attempt to understand what I'm saying and instead twist the words so you can argue against views I don't hold. I'm struggling to grasp what your posts are about or the point you're trying to make. I feel I have no option but to ignore them. I would rather meet objections and reply to questions, but not in cases where someone is just running interference since it takes too much time.

I feel like you are a bullshit artist. I am not "objecting" to anything except your dualistic understanding of non-dualism.

In the spirit of non-dualism I told you that I actually agree with you. Right here:

Because my "strong view" is in strong agreement with your view. I am literally agreeing that Perenialism is the same as all non-dualism.

And in the further spirit of non-dualism I pointed out that in 2019 Humanism and Science are the same teachings as any other non-dualist philosophy.

You disagreed.

This would be why I'm disagreeing with you. Here are the three characteristics of Humanism from a humanist website
- trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)

While in the next breath, you argued that Popperian science is non-dualistic.

The non-dual philsophy of the Upanishads was endorsed by Schrodinger, who promoted in his writing for forty years. As it is grounded in experience it is considered a science and it meets Popper's conditions.

You are truly, truly conflicted "non-dualist"

[Skepdick]

And, in the spirit of Philosophy Now, the statement requires no supporting rationale, facts, or examples.

The above statement does not make any sense.

I think Walker was being critical of the standards of rigour here, and I find his comment justified.

Which is to say that Philosophical statements require zero rigour whatsoever?

FUCKING AMEN!

The Philosophical statement "non-dualism is not a belief system" requires exactly the same amount of rigour as the Philosophical statement "science is not a belief system".

[PeteJ]

I cannot grasp why you are unable to read a book on the topic. Your confusion of Humanism and non-dualism is a basic mistake easily rectified. Your confusion over the Perennial philosophy suggests you've not even heard of Huxley's book by this title. You can't expect me to engage on this level.

Your misunderstanding of Walker's comment suggests you have no intention of having a sensible discussion and every intention of preventing one.

[Skepdick]

I cannot grasp why you are unable to read a book on the topic.

Because books are not empirical (1st hand) knowledge. Books are 2nd hand knowledge. Errors (in understanding) propagate the further you move away from the source of knowledge.

I can't give you 1st hand knowledge on my understanding of empiricism.
But I can point you to 2nd hand knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagati ... ncertainty

Your confusion of Humanism and non-dualism is a basic mistake easily rectified.

So you are clearly distancing non-dualism from empiricism/science/humanism? OK!

Your misunderstanding of Walker's comment suggests you have no intention of having a sensible discussion and every intention of preventing one.

How can I possibly have a sensible discussion with somebody who flips positions as soon as they are cornered on a self-contradiction?

[Dontaskme]

And, in the spirit of Philosophy Now, the statement requires no supporting rationale, facts, or examples.

The above statement does not make any sense.

I think Walker was being critical of the standards of rigour here, and I find his comment justified.

I don't agree.

Standards set by whom ever are subject to change. It's called being open minded, it's about thinking outside the confinments of inflexibilty.
Sometimes the crooked just needs to be straightened out.

[PeteJ]

I don't agree.

I wouldn't expect many people here to agree and feel this is what Walker was getting at.

[Dontaskme]

I don't agree.

I wouldn't expect many people here to agree and feel this is what Walker was getting at.

I don't know what Walker was getting at, I pretty much hardly ever get what Walker is getting at, and is why I can't agree with what I don't understand myself.


Individually, we are the only ones who have authority of oursleves, we are the author of our own being. I can only be in sync with the God of my own understanding. Sometimes I understand what someone else is getting at, but when I don't, I will say so, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, it's just that I don't get their point of view that's all.

.

[Sculptor]

Nonduality is also a belief system, but one which wipes itself and the believer away...It's normal it doesn't have a lot of 'followers'...

.

I think you have neglected to observe the suffix.
In the same way A-theism is not a belief system; NON- duality is not a belief system either.

I have only heard the most arrogant theists try to insist that atheism is a belief system. And I would imagine that only a person identifying themselves as a dualist would support your rather absurd idea.

There is no such thing as Nondualism, excpet as an indication that the recipient is not a dualist.

Nonduality isn't an 'ism' although mind really loves to categorize it like that, because then it can store it away in it's archive.

Nondualism is an idea. Ideas are not here to get us somewhere, they are here because we are an idea.

If an idea is a negative then it can be an idea; but it cannot be a system of belief.

[Skepdick]

I wouldn't expect many people here to agree and feel this is what Walker was getting at.

You clearly have some problems with reading comprehension.

Because my "strong view" is in strong agreement with your view. I am literally agreeing that Perenialism is the same as all non-dualism.

You know how philosophers politely disagree?
I was doing the exact opposite. I was rudely agreeing (you dumb Sophist cuuunt).

I was empirically testing whether you respond to Logos or Pathos when they are in direct conflict.

Your choice is clear now.

[Dontaskme]

Time for a Jolly good singsong..take it away Bruce..or is it Eddy Baby!!!

The Bruces Philosophers Song

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable. Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume Schoppenhauer and Hegel. And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, of his own free will On half a pint of shanty was particularly ill. Plato they say could stick it away, Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, And Hobbes was fond of his dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

.