Your Essential Thing

[Nick_A]

We know on this forum there are many things being said and they will continue being said. Is there something being missed in the midst of all these opinions? Is there an essential thing in you that needs to come out but cannot? Is it possible or are we restricted to the domain of opinions. Can philosophy help us to allow it to come out or is it just another means for expressing opinions?

I do not feel like I have anything that needs to come out that cannot. Rather, it would be nice if there was more recognition and acknowledgement between people in discussions, without the defensiveness and games and spin to protect the ego. Such are hopeless interactions, it seems, rather than expanding awareness.

I just ended a 7-month relationship because my boyfriend's "personal spin/story" was exhausting. Although he could hear and understand and WANT other ways of being, he locked himself into a pattern of ongoing aggravation -- his familiar/chosen story about life and the world. My "essential thing", I guess, is that there is truly nothing more important or natural than peace and love and joy. Intoxicated stories that disrupt that aren't worth taking on.

I've often wondered about people on this website who seem so locked into one story/platform or another... among countless options. Generally, my philosophy/way is to try to explore beyond what we think we know or what we think needs to be or IS -- while having fun doing it. For many people, however, philosophy is a much more serious business of taking up a position, and then defending that unyieldingly and inflexibly -- which, to me, seems so obviously convoluted and limited. I think what's more important than a person's philosophy is their ability to stretch beyond their own stories.

I think it's up to each of us to create our own experience of life, despite every intoxicating thing and person that pushes or pulls at us. We get to choose whether to be ruled by stories -- which is very liberating to realize.

You are not open to the great philosophical question raised by Bertrand Russell and prefer discussion of basic human interactions. Fair enough but I see no reason why these questions of human relations should replace the value of philosophy.

[PeteJ]

We know on this forum there are many things being said and they will continue being said. Is there something being missed in the midst of all these opinions?

I must, before I die, find some way to say the essential thing that is in me, that I have never said yet – a thing that is not love or hate or pity or scorn, but the very breath of life, fierce and coming from very far away. Bringing into human life the vastness and the fearful passionless force of non-human things . . . Bertrand Russell, letter to Constance Malleson, 1918

Is there an essential thing in you that needs to come out but cannot? Is it possible or are we restricted to the domain of opinions. Can philosophy help us to allow it to come out or is it just another means for expressing opinions?

Great question.

It's most odd that Russell makes this comment but rejects mysticism. It seems to me he is the most contradictory of all famous philosophers.

Your question is exhaustively answered by philosophers who are not on the university study list. In the Perennialist view philosophers are not 'restricted to the domain of opinion' unless, like most, they choose to be so by settling for opinions or mistaking them for facts. What is essential does not need to 'come out', we just need to go in. The Oracle at Delphi puts it very simply. Philosophising can help us know this, but not if we prefer our opinions to the results of analysis.

My view would be that what is 'being missed in the midst of all these opinions' is the results of philosophical analysis. Very few philosophers take these seriously. As a consequence their philosophy consists mostly of unjustifiable opinions. Hence Kant's summary of Western metaphysics as an 'arena for mock fights'. It could be more, but not while logic and reason are ignored for the sake of opinions. Meanwhile, your question would look idiotic on a Buddhist forum.

Almost all philosophers are able to calculate, with Kant and Russell, that all positive metaphysical theories fail, but nearly all of them hold the opinion that one of them is true. It really is a very odd situation. When I asked Spencer Brown a few years back why Russell could not see the solution despite reading Brown's book on the topic he remarked in a kindly and wistful way, 'Oh, Bertie was fool'. I wouldn't have used these words but didn't feel inclined to argue.

For a proper answer you'd have to delve into the Perennial philosophy. You won't find an an answer elsewhere that is not just a personal opinion.

[Skepdick]

Is there an essential thing in you that needs to come out but cannot? Is it possible or are we restricted to the domain of opinions. Can philosophy help us to allow it to come out or is it just another means for expressing opinions?

Used to think there was, till I remembered that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I am irreducible complexity. My essence is all of me - the good, the bad and the ugly. To define myself in language is to subject myself to the shortcomings and lacklustre of language itself.

I am. I have a name. That's all there is to say.

[Nick_A]

We know on this forum there are many things being said and they will continue being said. Is there something being missed in the midst of all these opinions?

I must, before I die, find some way to say the essential thing that is in me, that I have never said yet – a thing that is not love or hate or pity or scorn, but the very breath of life, fierce and coming from very far away. Bringing into human life the vastness and the fearful passionless force of non-human things . . . Bertrand Russell, letter to Constance Malleson, 1918

Is there an essential thing in you that needs to come out but cannot? Is it possible or are we restricted to the domain of opinions. Can philosophy help us to allow it to come out or is it just another means for expressing opinions?

Great question.

It's most odd that Russell makes this comment but rejects mysticism. It seems to me he is the most contradictory of all famous philosophers.

Your question is exhaustively answered by philosophers who are not on the university study list. In the Perennialist view philosophers are not 'restricted to the domain of opinion' unless, like most, they choose to be so by settling for opinions or mistaking them for facts. What is essential does not need to 'come out', we just need to go in. The Oracle at Delphi puts it very simply. Philosophising can help us know this, but not if we prefer our opinions to the results of analysis.

My view would be that what is 'being missed in the midst of all these opinions' is the results of philosophical analysis. Very few philosophers take these seriously. As a consequence their philosophy consists mostly of unjustifiable opinions. Hence Kant's summary of Western metaphysics as an 'arena for mock fights'. It could be more, but not while logic and reason are ignored for the sake of opinions. Meanwhile, your question would look idiotic on a Buddhist forum.

Almost all philosophers are able to calculate, with Kant and Russell, that all positive metaphysical theories fail, but nearly all of them hold the opinion that one of them is true. It really is a very odd situation. When I asked Spencer Brown a few years back why Russell could not see the solution despite reading Brown's book on the topic he remarked in a kindly and wistful way, 'Oh, Bertie was fool'. I wouldn't have used these words but didn't feel inclined to argue.

For a proper answer you'd have to delve into the Perennial philosophy. You won't find an an answer elsewhere that is not just a personal opinion.

Thanks for the polite intelligent response. Defending ancient ideas for some reason often attracts nastiness so your approach is appreciated.

I agree with you as far as perennial philosophy and anyone seriously interested in intellectually transcending opinions in order to "feel" their common source must eventually investigate it.

“It is only when we have renounced our preoccupation with "I," "me," "mine," that we can truly possess the world in which we live. Everything, provided that we regard nothing as property. And not only is everything ours; it is also everybody else's.”
― Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy

It does seem that in order to feel the essential question introduced by Bertrand Russell, we have to get out of our own way and defending opinions makes it impossible. As Simone Weil remarked:

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. ~ Simone Weil

True.

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil

Also true.

Some would consider it a contradiction but I see it an intelligent admission of the limitation of the dialectic necessary for opening ones higher mind..

[Age]

Not asking clarifying questions all the time is not necessarily evidence of a closed mind

You mean "on earth"?

I did not write that.

[Age]

Is there an essential thing in you that needs to come out but cannot? Is it possible or are we restricted to the domain of opinions. Can philosophy help us to allow it to come out or is it just another means for expressing opinions?

Used to think there was, till I remembered that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I am irreducible complexity. My essence is all of me - the good, the bad and the ugly. To define myself in language is to subject myself to the shortcomings and lacklustre of language itself.

I am. I have a name. That's all there is to say.

And what is that name?

[PeteJ]

Some would consider it a contradiction but I see it an intelligent admission of the limitation of the dialectic necessary for opening ones higher mind..

I concur 100%. By my calculations this limit to the reach of dialectal logic and the intellect might be called THE problem of philosophy and is the cause of all the others.

[Sculptor]

Not asking clarifying questions all the time is not necessarily evidence of a closed mind

You mean "on earth"?

I did not write that.

You mean you did not write that, on earth?

[Lacewing]

You are not open to the great philosophical question raised by Bertrand Russell and prefer discussion of basic human interactions.

Why do you say that?

I responded to your questions.

Was his quote something that you had a specific agenda/need for? He speaks of himself. So? Why must I imitate him? Why do YOU imitate these people you look up to, and close your mind to all else?

I see no reason why these questions of human relations should replace the value of philosophy.

What makes you think there is no philosophy?

[Skepdick]

Fair enough but I see no reason why these questions of human relations should replace the value of philosophy.

But isn't that the value of philosophy?

Acknowledging and accepting perspectivism as part of human relations.

Perhaps even... Philosophy: window-shopping for a new perspective.

[Age]

You mean "on earth"?

I did not write that.

You mean you did not write that, on earth?

No I did not mean that.

[Sculptor]

I did not write that.

You mean you did not write that, on earth?

No I did not mean that.

You don't seem to know what you mean.

[Age]

You mean you did not write that, on earth?

No I did not mean that.

You don't seem to know what you mean.

But I know exactly what I mean.

From your statement are you implying that you are still unsure what I mean?

If yes, then this could be very quickly, simply, and easily resolved with some clarifying questions from you, to me.

If no, then do we both know exactly what I mean?

[Lacewing]

If no, then do we both know exactly what I mean?

Who gives a fuck? Such games show that you don't.

[Sculptor]

No I did not mean that.

You don't seem to know what you mean.

But I know exactly what I mean.

From your statement are you implying that you are still unsure what I mean?

If yes, then this could be very quickly, simply, and easily resolved with some clarifying questions from you, to me.

If no, then do we both know exactly what I mean?

It's okay.
When you insisted that I specify "on earth" in another thread, I decided to pull your leg.
Since "on earth" was a redundancy I thought it would be funny to ask you to ad that to all your posts too. Maybe you did not see the joke?*
Since I now know that you are on the autistic spectrum I image you did not see the joke as other's might have.

* By the way. This is a perfectly reasonable construction for a sentence. It is not necessary to append "what", "why", "how" or "when".
You understand?