Kant's Four Questions

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:09 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:49 pm
We appreciate wisdom differently. The beginning of the Serenity Prayer really expresses my understanding of wisdom:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

A person can argue about what humans do as much as they like but the wisdom that deals with Kant’s questions is acquired from experiential knowledge – from efforts to “know thyself” or have the impartial experience of oneself. Most prefer to argue about what humans do. It is the way of education. Only a minority have a love of wisdom sufficient to become open to the way of wisdom.
Ahem. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, NICK_A; FOR I SHALT NOT WRITE ANY QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU OTHER THAN WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE. Please don't correct me, "yeah, but, yeah, but", later, you had your say, so forever hold your peace.

According to you, wisdom is to know the difference between what you can't change, and what you can change.

If you don't believe me, read what you said above.

This is PRECISELY what the serenity prayer says about wisdom. In addition, it appeals to a god to give you serenity to be able to accomplish the telling of the two types of things apart.

You explicitly said, and you can't mean other, than to say that to you wisdom is an ability to tell the difference between two things: what you can do and what you can't.

This is a pretty impoverished idea of wisdom, if you ask me. But you did not ask me. But I still say it: if this is the sum total of what makes a person wise, then it's pretty childish, immature, impoverished, useless, limited. And you insisted in the preamble that this is your idea of what wisdom is.

To me, wisdom entails other things as well, and without attempting to write a complete list, these are examples of attributes of wisdom which you never included in your definition of it:

abilities to tell:
What you would do in a certain situation, even before the situation arises
What others would do in certain situations should they face it at any time

Abilities to predict:
How others would react to your actions
How to convince others of your right (and how not to)

Abilities:
How to deflect inappropriate persuasion
How to shield your ego from vicious attacks on it

Abilities to discern:
Differences between people and types of reactions, and pairing them up properly and accurately
-----------------

You find none of these abilities as parts of wisdom, whereas I find them to be essential and very integral parts of wisdom. Again, please don't argue that you do, because you've already given your view of what wisdom entails, and none of what you said includes the above.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:31 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:09 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:49 pm
We appreciate wisdom differently. The beginning of the Serenity Prayer really expresses my understanding of wisdom:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

A person can argue about what humans do as much as they like but the wisdom that deals with Kant’s questions is acquired from experiential knowledge – from efforts to “know thyself” or have the impartial experience of oneself. Most prefer to argue about what humans do. It is the way of education. Only a minority have a love of wisdom sufficient to become open to the way of wisdom.
Ahem. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, NICK_A; FOR I SHALT NOT WRITE ANY QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU OTHER THAN WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE. Please don't correct me, "yeah, but, yeah, but", later, you had your say, so forever hold your peace.

According to you, wisdom is to know the difference between what you can't change, and what you can change.

If you don't believe me, read what you said above.

This is PRECISELY what the serenity prayer says about wisdom. In addition, it appeals to a god to give you serenity to be able to accomplish the telling of the two types of things apart.

You explicitly said, and you can't mean other, than to say that to you wisdom is an ability to tell the difference between two things: what you can do and what you can't.

This is a pretty impoverished idea of wisdom, if you ask me. But you did not ask me. But I still say it: if this is the sum total of what makes a person wise, then it's pretty childish, immature, impoverished, useless, limited. And you insisted in the preamble that this is your idea of what wisdom is.

To me, wisdom entails other things as well, and without attempting to write a complete list, these are examples of attributes of wisdom which you never included in your definition of it:

abilities to tell:
What you would do in a certain situation, even before the situation arises
What others would do in certain situations should they face it at any time

Abilities to predict:
How others would react to your actions
How to convince others of your right (and how not to)

Abilities:
How to deflect inappropriate persuasion
How to shield your ego from vicious attacks on it

Abilities to discern:
Differences between people and types of reactions, and pairing them up properly and accurately
-----------------

You find none of these abilities as parts of wisdom, whereas I find them to be essential and very integral parts of wisdom. Again, please don't argue that you do, because you've already given your view of what wisdom entails, and none of what you said includes the above.

Quite true. You've provided excellent examples of educated opinions concerning what humans do in relation to wisdom.
You explicitly said, and you can't mean other, than to say that to you wisdom is an ability to tell the difference between two things: what you can do and what you can't.
But only a small minority are capable of much less have such wisdom. The majority have either no opinions or educated opinions concerning wisdom.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:57 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:31 pm

1. But only a small minority are capable of much less have such wisdom. 2. The majority have either no opinions or educated opinions concerning wisdom.
1. This sentence makes no sense. Not even syntactically, never mind semantically.
2. I don't understand why you said that. We are talking about wisdom. Opinions of others have little to do with our discussion. You are completely off-topic here.

Neither of your sentences contributed anything to the topic at hand. You made no point. You made one statistical point without any research -- I can do that, a five-year-old child can do that. If you talk about majority, minority, etc., then you have to name your source. Nobody can check your references otherwise, how you got the data. You could be just saying this. I have a strong feeling that actually that is the case.

It is not very conducive to intelligent discourse to slide off topic, to say syntactically incorrect sentences, to say irrelevant things, and to cite data-based facts without naming the reference.

In other words: What are you doing to yourself, man? Or woman.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:00 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:31 pm
Quite true. You've provided excellent examples of educated opinions concerning what humans do in relation to wisdom.
And what have you provided? A sliding or two, incoherent sentences, and a childish and impoverished manifesto of what you consider wisdom.

Not a very good discussion here, I am afraid.

Plus, I have provided a bit more than what you claim I have.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:32 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:00 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:31 pm
Quite true. You've provided excellent examples of educated opinions concerning what humans do in relation to wisdom.
And what have you provided? A sliding or two, incoherent sentences, and a childish and impoverished manifesto of what you consider wisdom.

Not a very good discussion here, I am afraid.

Plus, I have provided a bit more than what you claim I have.
The discussion is fine. It has shown how philosophy as the love of wisdom is sacrificed to arguing educational parroting. Without this parroting those advocating philosophy begin to feel vulnerable. Some become willing to abandon parroting for efforts to "know thyself" and the revelations that enable wisdom and the ability to impartially contemplate contradictions raised by philosophical questions. Socrates understood this which is why he had to be killed. Those threatening educated opinions must be either eliminated or put to death.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:29 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:32 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:00 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:31 pm
Quite true. You've provided excellent examples of educated opinions concerning what humans do in relation to wisdom.
And what have you provided? A sliding or two, incoherent sentences, and a childish and impoverished manifesto of what you consider wisdom.

Not a very good discussion here, I am afraid.

Plus, I have provided a bit more than what you claim I have.
The discussion is fine. It has shown how philosophy as the love of wisdom is sacrificed to arguing educational parroting. Without this parroting those advocating philosophy begin to feel vulnerable. Some become willing to abandon parroting for efforts to "know thyself" and the revelations that enable wisdom and the ability to impartially contemplate contradictions raised by philosophical questions. Socrates understood this which is why he had to be killed. Those threatening educated opinions must be either eliminated or put to death.
JUMPIN' JACK FLASH.

You downplay what you don't understand... you surround yourself in a shroud of illusion of grandeur... you believe blindly in your own superiority... you invoke the friendship and understanding of dead people by completely misunderstanding their life's work, and that gives you resilience and inner strength... and you still don't make sense, never have, never will. Yet you are steadfast in not taking any criticism to heart, no matter how strong or valid they are... you get up every town you get knocked down.... you are Jumpin' Jack Flash.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:35 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:29 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:32 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:00 am


And what have you provided? A sliding or two, incoherent sentences, and a childish and impoverished manifesto of what you consider wisdom.

Not a very good discussion here, I am afraid.

Plus, I have provided a bit more than what you claim I have.
The discussion is fine. It has shown how philosophy as the love of wisdom is sacrificed to arguing educational parroting. Without this parroting those advocating philosophy begin to feel vulnerable. Some become willing to abandon parroting for efforts to "know thyself" and the revelations that enable wisdom and the ability to impartially contemplate contradictions raised by philosophical questions. Socrates understood this which is why he had to be killed. Those threatening educated opinions must be either eliminated or put to death.
JUMPIN' JACK FLASH.

You downplay what you don't understand... you surround yourself in a shroud of illusion of grandeur... you believe blindly in your own superiority... you invoke the friendship and understanding of dead people by completely misunderstanding their life's work, and that gives you resilience and inner strength... and you still don't make sense, never have, never will. Yet you are steadfast in not taking any criticism to heart, no matter how strong or valid they are... you get up every town you get knocked down.... you are Jumpin' Jack Flash.
You represent the dominant trend in philosophy which is to equate cleverness with wisdom. Kant's questions can be answered in a clever fashion by an "educated" person. But who replies with wisdom? Secular society is opposed to wisdom and insists on indoctrinated education based on knowledge. Consider the following diagram which compares fact, understanding, and wisdom. It is obvious how disconnected they are in modern secular society


Knowledge...Understanding..Wisdom

Fact..............Meaning.........What to Do Next

Information..... Principles......Application

Memory.........Reason..........Action

Scholars.......Teachers.........Prophets


If so many people are asleep in Plato's cave and caught up in selective facts, how can they be presumed to be capable of wisdom requiring a conscious human perspective? They are caught up in arguing facts. You can be critical of me for sensing the obvious and consider it " illusion of grandeur.." but I just consider it common sense that is intolerable even on some web sites advocating philosophy.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:31 pm

If you could only see yourself from the outside! You mistake logic and logical follow-through with empty cleverness. You mistake faith in a god and religious beliefs for wisdom. You misinterpret and misunderstand the basic teaching of Plato in the Republic.

You have voiced that education is a cold, calculated scientific endeavour, which prevents people from attaining wisdom. You have voiced that learning facts and depending on their knowledge is the false way to live.

I suggest you go into a cave, then, and renounce all that society has to offer with its scientific achievements. Live there without any tools, books, computers, weapons, or hygienic supplies, and without fabric clothing, and without using culinary spices, electricity and the Internet. Then come back in two months and tell us whether we should really discard scientific and factual knowledge in favour of your type of wisdom.

Should you say that your aim is NOT for society to discard scientific achievements and knowledge of facts for wisdom, then maybe you are suggesting that we should embrace YOUR type of wisdom along with knowledge of facts and science. But the two are incompatible. Your type of wisdom denies cause-effect, determinism, evolution being in place, and god only knows what else. Your type of wisdom is completely useless for any practical purpose. Your type of wisdom is in fact a hindrance to living together in a society which has thrived on progress. Your type of wisdom has been displaced by more mature, dignified, and pragmatic wisdom.

In fact, I ask you to present actual examples of your types of wisdom, which are NOT solely individual-oriented, inwardly-turning, meditative, god-worshipping wisdom. Show us what society and individuals can gain from focussing on your type of wisdom. If you say it's to help individuals attain salvation and redemption, then that won't stick with me. I live in this world, in this life, and I am not committed to alter my life in order to attain a promised life after this one, because the promised life is nothing but superstition, unfounded rumours, and unverified hearsay.

Dubious
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Dubious » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:14 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:31 pm
I live in this world, in this life, and I am not committed to alter my life in order to attain a promised life after this one, because the promised life is nothing but superstition, unfounded rumours, and unverified hearsay.
That's a safe bet and what "wisdom", if there is such a thing, should focus on in understanding and controlling, to the best of one's abilities, the complexities in this life. Kant's philosophy in fact relates mostly to this, the numinous perhaps existing but only comprehensible to humans as abstraction; that's when speculation never ceases and all kind of weird fantasies are created in its wake as paralogisms.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:09 am

Dubious wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:14 am
Kant's philosophy in fact relates mostly to this, the numinous perhaps existing but only comprehensible to humans as abstraction; that's when speculation never ceases and all kind of weird fantasies are created in its wake as paralogisms.
Thanks for the two words: Numinous (I had to look it up) and paralogism (special emphasis on the gism.)

Seriously, these are two really good and useful words, they should be more in circulation than they are.

That said, and I agree with you (except that I don't know Kant, so I can't agree with you on dat, due entirely to my huge ignorance). But there are some aspects in my life which are not concerned with god or spirituality, yet they are numinous. For instance, that I fully buy Ludwig van Beethoven's maxim, which went something like this (I can only find English translations of it, which bastardize the original, so the inaccurate version of my obscured memory I believe is just as good as any other English ones) :

"Music is the language of a world which understands us, but which we will never understand."
To my credit, I don't assume that the "world" which understands us (sic) is supernatural; it could be as simple as a differently advanced world from ours, and which has some influence on ours.

How I interpret Beethoven's maxim is that music speaks directly to our emotive selves, it jumps over the mostly necessary presence of the intervening semantic reality. Music moves us, or riles us, or makes us feel elated or very, very sad, yet it does not evoke necessarily any visual or conceptual imagery. Hence, it is a language which speaks to us, but we can never reply to the speakers of the music (which are presumably so strange to us, that they are not even of this world of ours.)

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:42 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:31 pm
If you could only see yourself from the outside! You mistake logic and logical follow-through with empty cleverness. You mistake faith in a god and religious beliefs for wisdom. You misinterpret and misunderstand the basic teaching of Plato in the Republic.

You have voiced that education is a cold, calculated scientific endeavour, which prevents people from attaining wisdom. You have voiced that learning facts and depending on their knowledge is the false way to live.

I suggest you go into a cave, then, and renounce all that society has to offer with its scientific achievements. Live there without any tools, books, computers, weapons, or hygienic supplies, and without fabric clothing, and without using culinary spices, electricity and the Internet. Then come back in two months and tell us whether we should really discard scientific and factual knowledge in favour of your type of wisdom.

Should you say that your aim is NOT for society to discard scientific achievements and knowledge of facts for wisdom, then maybe you are suggesting that we should embrace YOUR type of wisdom along with knowledge of facts and science. But the two are incompatible. Your type of wisdom denies cause-effect, determinism, evolution being in place, and god only knows what else. Your type of wisdom is completely useless for any practical purpose. Your type of wisdom is in fact a hindrance to living together in a society which has thrived on progress. Your type of wisdom has been displaced by more mature, dignified, and pragmatic wisdom.

In fact, I ask you to present actual examples of your types of wisdom, which are NOT solely individual-oriented, inwardly-turning, meditative, god-worshipping wisdom. Show us what society and individuals can gain from focussing on your type of wisdom. If you say it's to help individuals attain salvation and redemption, then that won't stick with me. I live in this world, in this life, and I am not committed to alter my life in order to attain a promised life after this one, because the promised life is nothing but superstition, unfounded rumours, and unverified hearsay.
My reply
"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

Science says 'We must live,' and seeks the means of prolonging, increasing, facilitating and amplifying life, of making it tolerable and acceptable, wisdom says 'We must die,' and seeks how to make us die well.– Socrates
You wrote
Should you say that your aim is NOT for society to discard scientific achievements and knowledge of facts for wisdom, then maybe you are suggesting that we should embrace YOUR type of wisdom along with knowledge of facts and science. But the two are incompatible. Your type of wisdom denies cause-effect, determinism, evolution being in place, and god only knows what else. Your type of wisdom is completely useless for any practical purpose. Your type of wisdom is in fact a hindrance to living together in a society which has thrived on progress. Your type of wisdom has been displaced by more mature, dignified, and pragmatic wisdom.
What in your opinion is my type of wisdom and what does one have to do to acquire it?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:19 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:42 am
What in your opinion is my type of wisdom and what does one have to do to acquire it?
Thanks for asking. Lest we lose sight of what you consider wisdom.

Let me refer you back to a few posts prior. You have eloquently described in unambiguous terms what you consider wisdom. Please, allow me to refresh your memory:


Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:49 pm
We appreciate wisdom differently. The beginning of the Serenity Prayer really expresses my understanding of wisdom:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.


Here, we see that to you wisdom is an ability to know the difference between what you can change and what you can not change.

In your own words, and that is from the best authority, that is your view of and stance on true wisdom.

You wrote the above, I have not taken away from what you have written or given anything to it to embellish it.

The statement alludes as well to god, who is a central and very important figure in your philosophy.

0000000000000000

What does one need to acquire your type of wisdom? You asked this also. In my opinion, the answer to that includes: A strong faith in god, a blind eye to complexities of life and the universe, a simplistic attitude, (not nihilistic, but simplistic), lack of insight, lack of general knowledge that is otherwise readily available in our society, an impoverished moral outlook, and a lazy mind. One also requires, to attain your kind of wisdom, a general disregard for logic, a general disregard for anything that is new or foreign to what already forms your world view, perhaps some fear of losing your faith, and a huge respect for the self, a HUGE propensity for feelings of grandeur, a disdain for people with different world views, and an unfounded yet very strong rejection and inability and unwillingness to expand your horizon.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:53 pm

-1-

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:49 pm
We appreciate wisdom differently. The beginning of the Serenity Prayer really expresses my understanding of wisdom:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.


Here, we see that to you wisdom is an ability to know the difference between what you can change and what you can not change.

In your own words, and that is from the best authority, that is your view of and stance on true wisdom.

You wrote the above, I have not taken away from what you have written or given anything to it to embellish it.

The statement alludes as well to god, who is a central and very important figure in your philosophy.
Regardless of how you perceive consciousness greater than your own, the point is that if we don’t “know thyself” we cannot accept what cannot change or have the courage to change what we can other than within superficial circumstances. We rationalize our ignorance by education concerning what humans do. Indoctrination is not wisdom. This is not all that complicated. If we do not “know thyself” by definition we are incapable of large scale wisdom.

Nick_A
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:40 pm

-1-
What does one need to acquire your type of wisdom? You asked this also. In my opinion, the answer to that includes: A strong faith in god, a blind eye to complexities of life and the universe, a simplistic attitude, (not nihilistic, but simplistic), lack of insight, lack of general knowledge that is otherwise readily available in our society, an impoverished moral outlook, and a lazy mind. One also requires, to attain your kind of wisdom, a general disregard for logic, a general disregard for anything that is new or foreign to what already forms your world view, perhaps some fear of losing your faith, and a huge respect for the self, a HUGE propensity for feelings of grandeur, a disdain for people with different world views, and an unfounded yet very strong rejection and inability and unwillingness to expand your horizon.
There is no personal God for Christianity so faith in God is meaningless. Christianity is concerned with the path to conscious evolution provided by the efforts of the Christ and enabled by the Holy Spirit.

Modern secularized biblical translations do not distiguish between belief IN Christ and the faith OF Christ. The KJV gets it right
Galatians 2:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
A person can believe IN anything but the faith OF Christ is a human attribute we have in rudimentary form as a potential. Secularized religion has no concept of the importance of this distinction. The facts you speak of that you accuse me of being ignorant of are things we believe in. They are considered important for worldly matters. The faith OF Christ is what consciously connects levels of reality. There is no reason to deny science. It is concerned with the facts of the world. The faith OF Christ is concerned with the objective quality of a moment. These two paths are complimentary. Science deals with linear time and the faith OF Christ is concerned with the conscious quality of NOW. Only human ignorance can believe them opposed or allow people to have disdain for opinions. Opinions are the way of the world. Why hate the world trapped in darkness? The faith OF Christ offers the conscious inner vertical direction leading to knowledge as described by Plato and freedom of attachments to opinions.

It is OK for you to accuse me. It is par for the course. All people who will refer to transcending opinions for the sake of experiencing objective truth will be ridiculed by secularism. Secular religions will consider them not saved and secular humanism will call them lost in fantasy. But the point is that throughout history there have been people open to this conscious vertical direction known in Christianity as the faith OF Christ. They become intolerable for secularism insisting on opposing opinions on what a person should believe IN so must be eliminated.

Dubious
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Dubious » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:00 am

Dubious wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:14 am
Kant's philosophy in fact relates mostly to this, the numinous perhaps existing but only comprehensible to humans as abstraction; that's when speculation never ceases and all kind of weird fantasies are created in its wake as paralogisms.
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:09 am
Thanks for the two words: Numinous (I had to look it up) and paralogism (special emphasis on the gism.)

Seriously, these are two really good and useful words, they should be more in circulation than they are.

That said, and I agree with you (except that I don't know Kant, so I can't agree with you on dat, due entirely to my huge ignorance).
I don’t know much about Kant either but it doesn’t take a great deal of study to get in tune with the main outlines of his thought…definitely worth knowing and still valid.
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:09 am
But there are some aspects in my life which are not concerned with god or spirituality, yet they are numinous.
I’ve long been convinced that god and the spirituality invoked by that concept are actually impediments to discovering and experiencing the numinous.
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:09 am
For instance, that I fully buy Ludwig van Beethoven's maxim, which went something like this (I can only find English translations of it, which bastardize the original, so the inaccurate version of my obscured memory I believe is just as good as any other English ones) :

"Music is the language of a world which understands us, but which we will never understand."
I think the quote you’re referring to is this one...
"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.”

...but to my mind a more profound expression of that is as Wagner symbolized in Parsifal who “is on his way to the temple of the Grail Knights and says: “I hardly move, yet far I seem to have come”, and the all-knowing Gurnemanz replies: “You see, my son, time turns here into space”.

An example of how music can hold time in suspension to reveal that which earns for release would be something like this…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9680zhMmIqM

The numinous reveals itself as an inflation of feeling which anchors the moment causing time to compress blending itself into space; it inverts time, so to speak, to make the “outer reaches of inner space”, (to slightly paraphrase Joseph Campbell), much more palpable. In fewer words, the numinous is an instance of psychic compression music being one its most potent catalysts.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Age and 4 guests