The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:11 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:51 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:49 pm Why?
Perhaps the most common mistake in philosophy.

The fundamental question of philosophy cannot be why, because it smuggles in an assumption which it is the job of philosophy to determine.
I see it differently.

It does not "smuggle in" anything at all: rather, it leaves it unspecified. And that's appropriate to the OP, because it suggests we only get one shot to suggest a question that fits many situations, one "handle that fits all pots."

"Why?" does that.

But there's a second reason why "Why?" is the best answer: and that is, the philosophy is profoundly concerned with questions like rationality, justification, warrant, and legitimacy. It searches out the premises that are supposed to produce particular conclusions. Thus, the philosopher must endlessly asking -- in response to any question -- "Why?"

So there's no buried agenda there. Just a handle that fits all the pots, and a question that probes the rational basis for all conclusions. So I'm still saying it's best.
Of course you see it differently. I think you are mistaken, which is nothing to worry about. Most people think I'm mistaken.

Nevertheless, "why," does not mean anything unless, "what," is first identified. If why is to mean anything it is and most always be, "why what?"

The issue is what the fundamental question of philosophy is. What is it the discipline of philosophy seeks the answer to. I do not think any single interrogative answers that question, not even, "what." The correct answer is, "what is there and what is it's nature?" If there weren't anything there would be nothing to ask anything about. If there was nothing that could be known about what is, there would be no question of why it is as it is?"

Your own examples illustrate that it is, "what," that philosophy seeks the answer to. If, "what rationality, justification, warrant, and legitimacy are or if there really are such things is not first answered, the question of why concerning any of those things cannot even be considered?

In most cases, the answer to any question of why is a what. The answer to the question, "why do things fall," is the nature of, "what," is--the gravitation attraction of physical entities. The answer to the question of, "why do things burn," is, "the nature of the chemical elements, oxygen, and any that can chemically combine with oxygen." It is knowing the nature of what, (that which is), that answers the question of why things behave as they do.

In your own case, the answer to every, "why," is ultimately a, "what." You call it a, "first cause," or, "God," assuming there must be an answer to the question of, "why," for everything there is, except that you disregard that premise when the question is asked about your assumption there is a God. If everything there is requires an answer to the question, "why," you must be able to answer the question, "why is there a God." The question is not, why do you believe there must be a God, but, "why is there a God?"

I'm not asking you that question, or questioning your belief. I'm only pointing out why I cannot accept the premise that there must be an answer to the question why for everything that is.

The problem with, "why," as a fundamental question is that it always leads to an infinite regress. If you have children or have much experience with them, you certainly know there can never be an ultimate answer to the question, "why?" No matter how many time's you answer a child's question, such as, "but why is sugar sweet," your answer will be questioned with another, "why?" The right answer is never, "because I'm your Daddy (authority) and I said so!" The right answer will be, when the child is able to understand it, how the nature of that about which the question is asked explains why it behaves as it does.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by RCSaunders »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:42 am A perceived thing has no power of perception, ...
Not sure what you mean here. I perceive my cat, my wife, and my neighbors, and I'm quite sure they all perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste) things as well. Wouldn't they be things perceived (by me) that also perceive?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9018
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:49 pm Of course you see it differently. I think you are mistaken, which is nothing to worry about. Most people think I'm mistaken.
And there, an end of it, then.

You have my reasons.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Dontaskme »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:59 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:42 am A perceived thing has no power of perception, ...
Not sure what you mean here. I perceive my cat, my wife, and my neighbors, and I'm quite sure they all perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste) things as well. Wouldn't they be things perceived (by me) that also perceive?
A perceived thing is the perceiver that cannot be perceived - the perceiver and perceived is one perceiving unity in the instantaneous now.

One is reduction - the other is additive.

.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by SteveKlinko »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:49 pm
The problem with, "why," as a fundamental question is that it always leads to an infinite regress. If you have children or have much experience with them, you certainly know there can never be an ultimate answer to the question, "why?" No matter how many time's you answer a child's question, such as, "but why is sugar sweet," your answer will be questioned with another, "why?" The right answer is never, "because I'm your Daddy (authority) and I said so!" The right answer will be, when the child is able to understand it, how the nature of that about which the question is asked explains why it behaves as it does.
Infinite regress of Whys? implies that no question of, Why, can ever completely be answered. I disagree. There may be many follow up Whys but I think there is an ultimate answer for all Whys. How do you Know it has to always be an Infinite regress?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:41 pm Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

.
LOL but what you just said IS an absolute truth.

It is because of thee One and only always Truly OPEN Mind that absolute Truths, like this one here, can be KNOWN.

How else did that Truth, 'A perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing', become KNOWN, by the one known as "dontaskme" if it was not through and from a Truly OPEN Mind?

By the way, there is NO 'perceiving mind' at all anyway. The brain perceives things, from the information fed to it from the five senses of the body.

The brain obviously can NOT know the absolute truth of reality. The brain is only a computer that receives information, and then outputs information, as knowledge.

Whether this knowledge is absolutely True or not is depended upon AGREEMENT. If EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT as One, then that is the absolute Truth.

The ONLY True way this is KNOWN, for sure, is through clarification.

A human brain holds the personal small self, this one brain can only think.

EVERY thing as One is thee True Self, this One (Truly OPEN) Mind just KNOWS.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:01 pm
Whether this knowledge is absolutely True or not is depended upon AGREEMENT. If EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT as One, then that is the absolute Truth.

The ONLY True way this is KNOWN, for sure, is through clarification.

I disagree. In fact what you've said makes no sense whatsoever. The one's agreeing they are all one do NOT exist - except as an imagined KNOWN CONCEPT.

Perceiving, knowing or experiencing is one with yourself ONLY. In fact, it is not even 'one with' which implies two. There are not two things there in the experience of perceiving, knowing or experiencing, to be 'one with' each other.

Perceiving, knowing or experiencing is seamless, without parts, objects or selves.

The KNOWN know nothing. The KNOWN is an object of knowledge which is always in knowledge and knowledge is not affected by the thing known. Knowledge does not refer to the thing known, it is the knowing that cannot be KNOWN.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.

.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by RCSaunders »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:00 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:59 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:42 am A perceived thing has no power of perception, ...
Not sure what you mean here. I perceive my cat, my wife, and my neighbors, and I'm quite sure they all perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste) things as well. Wouldn't they be things perceived (by me) that also perceive?
A perceived thing is the perceiver that cannot be perceived - the perceiver and perceived is one perceiving unity in the instantaneous now.

One is reduction - the other is additive.
Oh, well, sure. That clears it right up.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by RCSaunders »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:57 pm Infinite regress of Whys? implies that no question of, Why, can ever completely be answered. I disagree. There may be many follow up Whys but I think there is an ultimate answer for all Whys. How do you Know it has to always be an Infinite regress?
Why can be answered but not with a why. It can only be answered with a, "what." No matter what answer someone gives to any why, that answer can be questioned with, "why is that so?" Everything cannot be contingent. Something just has to be what it is because it is what it is. So the question that can be answered is, "what?"

Does that make sense to you?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:01 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:01 pm
Whether this knowledge is absolutely True or not is depended upon AGREEMENT. If EVERY one is IN AGREEMENT as One, then that is the absolute Truth.

The ONLY True way this is KNOWN, for sure, is through clarification.

I disagree. In fact what you've said makes no sense whatsoever. The one's agreeing they are all one do NOT exist - except as an imagined KNOWN CONCEPT.

Perceiving, knowing or experiencing is one with yourself ONLY. In fact, it is not even 'one with' which implies two. There are not two things there in the experience of perceiving, knowing or experiencing, to be 'one with' each other.

Perceiving, knowing or experiencing is seamless, without parts, objects or selves.

The KNOWN know nothing. The KNOWN is an object of knowledge which is always in knowledge and knowledge is not affected by the thing known. Knowledge does not refer to the thing known, it is the knowing that cannot be KNOWN.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.

.
The Knowing can be KNOWN, and already KNOWS.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:58 am
The Knowing can be KNOWN, and already KNOWS.
There is only knowing that cannot be known.

The knowing is the KNOWN that knows nothing.

That can not know.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Dontaskme »

The I will never know absolute freedom/peace/love, because it IS it.

The SELF has no other self to know itself. It would have to split itself up in two, the knower and the known...

No split ever occurs or happened.

There is no self because there is no other than self.

There is no big or little S ..this is just a load of nonsense, imagination and fantasy.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:24 am
Age wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:58 am
The Knowing can be KNOWN, and already KNOWS.
There is only knowing that cannot be known.

The knowing is the KNOWN that knows nothing.

That can not know.
But the Knowing Knower that is the KNOWN knows every thing.

I KNOW this because I am thee One and only Knowing Knower.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The basic question of all philosophy is ?

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:22 am The I will never know absolute freedom/peace/love, because it IS it.

The SELF has no other self to know itself. It would have to split itself up in two, the knower and the known...

No split ever occurs or happened.

There is no self because there is no other than self.

There is no big or little S ..this is just a load of nonsense, imagination and fantasy.
But there is, to 'you', a SELF, all big letters, correct?
Post Reply