Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:46 pm
Plato wrote that “Man is a being in search of meaning.” How can Man acquire a human perspective which serves this need? Can reason alone satisfy the need for meaning? Does it for you?
Noted your quote is disputed. You need to maintain intellectual integrity where necessary.
Yes, reason can infer from empirical evidences [personal and external] and abstract universal principles therefrom.
That is what Science has been doing.
Therefore humans should be able to infer the meaning of life from the empirical evidences of life.
One principle I can abstract for humans is 'all humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till inevitable mortality.' Can you dispute this?
What IYO creates a conscious human perspective as opposed to a conditioned animal perspective?
DNA wise, a conscious human being is distinctively different from other animals.
Non-humans do not idealize an illusory God to cling on for psychological security. There are so many other distinct differences.
I agree that it is easy to speak of ideals but the process of working towards them is abused in the most harmful ways as it is with the question of God. Man creates a personal God for the sake of acquiring power. It is a distortion which creates the impression that God serves Man rather than Man serving a universal purpose within creation.
It is obvious that the concept of God as the source of creation is abused for pragmatic reasons. This doesn’t deny the connection of Man’s being with higher consciousness but rather proves the dominance of human hypocrisy.
You have to define and prove that 'higher consciousness' that you are claiming.
I presume you are postulating an independent Being that has non-human consciousness, aka God, Absolute, Oneness and the likes.
I have proven such an entity is impossible to be real.
Intellectual reason has its value. One important value often overlooked is that it protects our emotional intelligence from obvious self deception. But when it represses the needs of the heart to feel objective value, it defeats its purpose.
Yes intellectual reason is limited.
What I am proposing is philosophy-proper with its holistic critical thinking and whole load of other thinking tools.
My impression is that your experiences with religion has made you deny the quality of emotional intelligence necessary to satisfy the needs of the heart which are a necessary part of acquiring a human perspective in which the mind, heart, and body work together rather than against each other.
Nah, you are so wrong.
I have stated before, I had done meditation and other 'spiritual' exercises to maintain a holistic self. Though not a Buddhist per se, I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva's vow to extend empathy and compassion to all of humanity and other living things.
Note I asserted you are on a very selfish path to reinforce your own psychological security by clinging on something that cannot be proven at all.
Tell me how can your beliefs benefit humanity in the longer run?
A human perspective is defined by what we do, not what we think. Say for example that a person decides they must lose twenty pounds so decide to go on diet. However the body has been conditioned to like sweets. When a person is in a bad mood they support the body’s desire for sweets but when they see an attractive member of the opposite sex, they remember why they want to diet. What we do in relation to our aim changes both by external and internal circumstances. So in reality we can’t have a human perspective. We are creatures of reaction with the potential for a human perspective which feels and reflects higher values not because we are conditioned to but because it is normal for the human soul or essence.
True, actions are as important than thinking.
Note expressing one's thought and discussion in a philosophy forum is also an action in contributing to society and improvement to oneself.
I asked again what have you done with your philosophical views that can benefit humanity effectively?
Consider these questions of the heart Jacob Needleman refers to in this interview. Do you believe a person could have a human rather than a conditioned animal perspective without having felt such questions and understood them in a way that satisfies the needs of the heart? I don’t think so. These questions refer to soul knowledge and without understanding these deeply human needs as normal and living by them as natural, I cannot see how we can be said to have a human perspective.
https://www.northatlanticbooks.com/blog ... -question/
Jacob Needleman is describing the need for “meaning.” As opposed to factual knowledge. The head reveals facts while the heart or our emotional nature should lead to the experience of meaning. But this ability has been sacrificed for the glorification of egoistic pragmatic gain. As a result a human perspective is only possible for the minority with the need and will to become normal for human being.
It is one thing to think objectively and quite another to feel objectively. How many even know what it means? Yet without both, how can we expect to acquire a human perspective?
Note I have been posting that one must know oneself i.e. 'know thyself' deep inside to the details of the neurons and what is going inside your main 'microprocesser' i.e. the brain and also the genome. This is most one can get to being human and understand oneself as human being.
Getting to know [theory] oneself will enable one to cultivate [action] a more holistic 'heart', actually it is related to the empathy-parts [mirror neurons] of the brain, not exactly the heart per-se.
In your attempt to squeeze me into a shallow and narrow box, you are actually exposing your own ignorance whilst living within a tall silo.