Western Philosophy is bankrupt

[PeteJ]

I call on all the posters and readers of Philosophy Now! forums to reject the presumptuous foundations of traditional philosophy canon of the Enlightenment in Europe. I declare here a mobilization of the acceptance of a new set of foundational axioms -

Hmm. It seems to me you are still doing Western philosophy.

I would define 'Western' philosophy as a scholastic approach embodying dualism and rejecting mysticism that evolved from the post-Socratic Greeks (much as Heidegger does). Perhaps your definition is different.

But I would strongly agree that the tradition is bankrupt. It hardly needs pointing out. In the US there is debate going on as to whether universities need philosophy departments. It's not as if they ever meet any performance targets.

[uwot]

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.
Erwin Schrödinger.

However, fundamental particles are whatever make tracks in particle detectors; and they at least are pretty distinct.

That understanding solves all metaphysical questions by logical extension. Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern.

I'll stick with 'shapes and variations'. I think you have a bit of work to do to show that there is "purpose".

[Advocate]

[quote=uwot post_id=471162 time=1600087407 user_id=7941]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471156 time=1600086153 user_id=15238][quote=uwot post_id=471133 time=1600073247 user_id=7941][i]What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.[/i]
Erwin Schrödinger.

However, fundamental particles are whatever make tracks in particle detectors; and they at least are pretty distinct.
[/quote]

That understanding solves all metaphysical questions by logical extension. Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern.[/quote]
I'll stick with 'shapes and variations'. I think you have a bit of work to do to show that there is "purpose".
[/quote]

The purpose is prior to the pattern. There is only undifferentiated stuff until our subconscious ascertains danger or interest potential. Only if our attention is drawn to the pattern do we ever notice it as such and ny that time it has already been recognised into being. But i assume you had something very different in mind...

[uwot]

The purpose is prior to the pattern.

Where does the purpose come from?

[Advocate]

[quote=uwot post_id=471306 time=1600151993 user_id=7941]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471173 time=1600091748 user_id=15238]The purpose is prior to the pattern.[/quote]
Where does the purpose come from?
[/quote]

All living things have an avoid/approach mechanism. It's basically the definition of living as that feedback loop is what eventually becomes consciousness. In plants we call it biology. In animals we call it feelings. In humans we call it cognition (not that all humans exist on that level). Caring = meaning = purpose in various ways at various levels - it's all the same thing underneath. As for ontology, our subconscious processes those patterns, which are soft-wired into the brain. Our conscious mind (synonymous with self, more or less) only deals with higher order patterns.

Simple recognition of boundary conditions is the first element, then danger potential, then interest potential, and only then do "you" become involved. Anything spiritual (non-emperical) is subject to three contingencies; salience (beyond your control), perspective (sometimes malleable), and priority (bespoke but only as good as it is explicit).

That's where purpose comes from and how it works. It's a higher-order of complexity than base avoid/approach, but on the same scale. At the level of meaning all the contingencies are involved.