Philosophy Now Forum

Hello everyone.

I didn't realize Philosophy Now had a forum. Very nice surprise. It's been some time since I've dabbled in a philosophy forum, and I'm looking forward to getting back to it. I'll be defending my dissertation this coming semester, and so I finally feel free to re-enter the online world here -- born again you might say... Even started a blog (xanbozzo.com)!

Looking forward to sharpening the philosophical edges here. Where to start...

--- Xan Bozzo

AtariKo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:09 pm Hello everyone.

I didn't realize Philosophy Now had a forum. Very nice surprise. It's been some time since I've dabbled in a philosophy forum, and I'm looking forward to getting back to it. I'll be defending my dissertation this coming semester, and so I finally feel free to re-enter the online world here -- born again you might say... Even started a blog (xanbozzo.com)!

Looking forward to sharpening the philosophical edges here. Where to start...

--- Xan Bozzo

What's your dissertation about, Boz? In a few words, please. If it's longer than a few medium-sized paragraphs, I'll fall asleep, guaranteed, in the middle of it. And no reflection on the quality of writing, instead, on the quality of my attention span and narcomania.

The dissertation attempts to show the role of clear and distinct perception in Hume’s philosophy — most notably his theory of causation. There, one sentence!

AtariKo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:34 pm The dissertation attempts to show the role of clear and distinct perception in Hume’s philosophy — most notably his theory of causation. There, one sentence!

Thanks, Boz!! Fantastic follow-through with eagerness to please.

And happy birthday.

General Shoutout to everyone:

I criticized Boz for his paper he presented on his blog. I made a real mess of it. Later I apologized to Boz, but I don't know if he read the PM which contained the apology.

Originally I wanted to issue the apology on the blog page I created the nightmarish criticism, but the blog page is gone.

My criticism was hugely invalid. I apologize for messing up his blog page. Please forgive me, Boz.

Hi,

Just saw your PM, and no need to apologize! As I explain in the PM, the page came down for other reasons. Although the discussion is still preserved, if you desire it!

— Xan

How exactly are you born again?

Viveka wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:14 am How exactly are you born again?

A man may be born, but in order to be born he must first die, and in order to die he must first awake. - Gurdjieff

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:16 am

Viveka wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:14 am How exactly are you born again?

A man may be born, but in order to be born he must first die, and in order to die he must first awake. - Gurdjieff

There doesn't seem to be a lot of promise in that formula; in order to die he must first awake. These little epithets which exist in profusion just roll trippingly off the tongue, don't they! Though the sentiment remains valid the experience may never have occurred.

Isn't one birth enough? AtariKo, I'm wondering what it was about Hume's theory of causation that attracted you.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:43 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:16 am

Viveka wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:14 am How exactly are you born again?

A man may be born, but in order to be born he must first die, and in order to die he must first awake. - Gurdjieff

There doesn't seem to be a lot of promise in that formula; in order to die he must first awake. These little epithets which exist in profusion just roll trippingly off the tongue, don't they! Though the sentiment remains valid the experience may never have occurred.

Surely the sly man didn't get one over on you In order to have a new perspective/philosophy, the old one must die, but before that is possible, one must be aware. Somnambulism isn't conducive to philosophical growth.

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:31 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:43 am

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:16 am

A man may be born, but in order to be born he must first die, and in order to die he must first awake. - Gurdjieff

There doesn't seem to be a lot of promise in that formula; in order to die he must first awake. These little epithets which exist in profusion just roll trippingly off the tongue, don't they! Though the sentiment remains valid the experience may never have occurred.

Surely the sly man didn't get one over on you In order to have a new perspective/philosophy, the old one must die, but before that is possible, one must be aware. Somnambulism isn't conducive to philosophical growth.

This is a very old idea constantly repeated in this way or that making it hard to miss its meaning. But for me many guru sayings are trivial and just short of meaningless. One never "dies" to an old idea, though it sounds superficially profound, because then you have nothing to proceed from. We advance from error and errors in judgement by degrees of refinement, the prior steps to the ones that follow. and not to be forgotten. We seldom proceed in leaps, though we often use that word, but from the gradient of an inclined plane. That's the reason I wrote re Gurdjieff that the sentiment remains valid though the experience may never have occurred.

Dying to an old idea is a fallacy but people are free to think or imagine as they like. Philosophy has more to with sweating out ideas than leaps of revelation!

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:13 pm

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:31 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:43 am

There doesn't seem to be a lot of promise in that formula; in order to die he must first awake. These little epithets which exist in profusion just roll trippingly off the tongue, don't they! Though the sentiment remains valid the experience may never have occurred.

Surely the sly man didn't get one over on you In order to have a new perspective/philosophy, the old one must die, but before that is possible, one must be aware. Somnambulism isn't conducive to philosophical growth.

This is a very old idea constantly repeated in this way or that making it hard to miss its meaning. But for me many guru sayings are trivial and just short of meaningless. One never "dies" to an old idea, though it sounds superficially profound, because then you have nothing to proceed from. We advance from error and errors in judgement by degrees of refinement, the prior steps to the ones that follow. and not to be forgotten. We seldom proceed in leaps, though we often use that word, but from the gradient of an inclined plane. That's the reason I wrote re Gurdjieff that the sentiment remains valid though the experience may never have occurred.

Dying to an old idea is a fallacy but people are free to think or imagine as they like. Philosophy has more to with sweating out ideas than leaps of revelation!

So what do you make of the aphorism: "Knowledge progresses one funeral at a time."

Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:07 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:13 pm

Serendipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:31 pm
Surely the sly man didn't get one over on you In order to have a new perspective/philosophy, the old one must die, but before that is possible, one must be aware. Somnambulism isn't conducive to philosophical growth.

This is a very old idea constantly repeated in this way or that making it hard to miss its meaning. But for me many guru sayings are trivial and just short of meaningless. One never "dies" to an old idea, though it sounds superficially profound, because then you have nothing to proceed from. We advance from error and errors in judgement by degrees of refinement, the prior steps to the ones that follow. and not to be forgotten. We seldom proceed in leaps, though we often use that word, but from the gradient of an inclined plane. That's the reason I wrote re Gurdjieff that the sentiment remains valid though the experience may never have occurred.

Dying to an old idea is a fallacy but people are free to think or imagine as they like. Philosophy has more to with sweating out ideas than leaps of revelation!

So what do you make of the aphorism: "Knowledge progresses one funeral at a time."

That depends! What kind of knowledge? Does it refer to mystical ruminations presupposed as knowledge à la Gurdjieff and such like; does it refer to philosophy or more specifically to science. Methodologies among disciplines differ and with it how knowledge is defined from "knowing oneself" presumably to everything beyond.

Max Planck explains:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."