The highest dialogical struggle.

[tapaticmadness]

star belly sneeches are bestest

-Imp

well stated.

I don't get it. Are you guys Hyperboreans or maybe from New Jersey?

[Atla]

Most of science nowadays is dedicated to instrumentalism. So, it's not-philosophy, and looks like it's going to stay that way. For that 'something more' we have metaphysics and so on.

Instrumentalism is a specific determination. It was worked out in the tradition of the last 30 generations. It already is a metaphysical determination.

It tacitly includes the other positions which it thereby admits as problems. It means "science," the vernacular term, is not a science, but rather an art or techne.

That's my point. You think everyone who has ever lived makes that distinction on a fundamental level, and then runs into the problem of consciousness. But searching for the 'truth', one can figure out that this is totally untrue (and I'd say hundreds of millions of people know/knew better). But is figuring this out worth it, and should we throw out the thinking of (almost) everyone who has ever lived under Western philosophy (after firing our philosophers)?

Everyone in the West speaks of subjectivity and objectivity. And everyone uses the conception of the cultures (an American notion linked to fact/value dualism). That is the common sense form of dualism. It’s the result of the last 30 generations of speaking about these issues, and is very short lived so far dating from long after the second war in its widespread acceptance. It will surely change.

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by the claim that it is “totally untrue.” I think you don’t either.

Beside from that, in the sciences the mind body problem and the corresponding problem of consciousness are generally accepted as open difficulties. So you are in the very small minority with your dogmatic assertion which, further, is wholly unreasonable, not to say simply crazy form any point of view especially that of common sense.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West". It's perfectly normal for us Westerners to be initially unaware that there are two major philosophical metaparadigms on this planet. The other one is different beyond our wildest guess. Since the mind-body problem is by definition unsolvable, it indeed does sound crazy that the other metaparadigm doesn't even run into it.

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

[Skepdick]

Instrumentalism is a specific determination. It was worked out in the tradition of the last 30 generations. It already is a metaphysical determination.

It tacitly includes the other positions which it thereby admits as problems. It means "science," the vernacular term, is not a science, but rather an art or techne.

"Science" (if that's even a thing) is techne and episteme.

At the core of science and philosophy is pragmatism. Truth is that which obtains.

Whatever it is that you are trying to obtain being a goal of some sort the scientific metaphysic (strong beliefs, weakly held) is the most effective metaphysic we have at our disposal.

[TheVisionofEr]

Most of science nowadays is dedicated to instrumentalism. So, it's not-philosophy, and looks like it's going to stay that way. For that 'something more' we have metaphysics and so on.

Instrumentalism is a specific determination. It was worked out in the tradition of the last 30 generations. It already is a metaphysical determination.

It tacitly includes the other positions which it thereby admits as problems. It means "science," the vernacular term, is not a science, but rather an art or techne.

That's my point. You think everyone who has ever lived makes that distinction on a fundamental level, and then runs into the problem of consciousness. But searching for the 'truth', one can figure out that this is totally untrue (and I'd say hundreds of millions of people know/knew better). But is figuring this out worth it, and should we throw out the thinking of (almost) everyone who has ever lived under Western philosophy (after firing our philosophers)?

Everyone in the West speaks of subjectivity and objectivity. And everyone uses the conception of the cultures (an American notion linked to fact/value dualism). That is the common sense form of dualism. It’s the result of the last 30 generations of speaking about these issues, and is very short lived so far dating from long after the second war in its widespread acceptance. It will surely change.

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by the claim that it is “totally untrue.” I think you don’t either.

Beside from that, in the sciences the mind body problem and the corresponding problem of consciousness are generally accepted as open difficulties. So you are in the very small minority with your dogmatic assertion which, further, is wholly unreasonable, not to say simply crazy form any point of view especially that of common sense.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West". It's perfectly normal for us Westerners to be initially unaware that there are two major philosophical metaparadigms on this planet. The other one is different beyond our wildest guess. Since the mind-body problem is by definition unsolvable, it indeed does sound crazy that the other metaparadigm doesn't even run into it.

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

Why is the study of evolution of any value? After all, it is simply the past. The ideas that are now commonplace “evolved,” we have a very close record of that history over the last thirty generations or so. The view that humans just showed up, as though they were born out of the earth is just as naive as the view that our interpretations of life are spontaneous.

I don’t know what you imagine to be “refuted.” I suspect you don’t either.

It’s true that a kind of “materialism” is generally popular in all the western countries, in the sense of a kind of “common sense” or popular view which is spontaneously present without any philosophy, and it has been that way since some time after the 2nd war in the English speaking countries. It was originally a philosophic view, as in several forms as in Hobbes and Mandeville for instance. As were a number of other views which people now have in the western countries, and almost everywhere, simply by being alive.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West".

Exacto. And neither will people in fifty years time think as one now does. However, this means those of us who see the evolution of the interpretation of things most clearly can potentially take control of our own understanding. Which is now primarily the leftovers of “everyone” as the garbage heap of the past interpreting for us.

[TheVisionofEr]

Instrumentalism is a specific determination. It was worked out in the tradition of the last 30 generations. It already is a metaphysical determination.

It tacitly includes the other positions which it thereby admits as problems. It means "science," the vernacular term, is not a science, but rather an art or techne.




Everyone in the West speaks of subjectivity and objectivity. And everyone uses the conception of the cultures (an American notion linked to fact/value dualism). That is the common sense form of dualism. It’s the result of the last 30 generations of speaking about these issues, and is very short lived so far dating from long after the second war in its widespread acceptance. It will surely change.

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by the claim that it is “totally untrue.” I think you don’t either.

Beside from that, in the sciences the mind body problem and the corresponding problem of consciousness are generally accepted as open difficulties. So you are in the very small minority with your dogmatic assertion which, further, is wholly unreasonable, not to say simply crazy form any point of view especially that of common sense.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West". It's perfectly normal for us Westerners to be initially unaware that there are two major philosophical metaparadigms on this planet. The other one is different beyond our wildest guess. Since the mind-body problem is by definition unsolvable, it indeed does sound crazy that the other metaparadigm doesn't even run into it.

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

Why is the study of evolution of any value? After all, it is simply the past. The ideas that are now commonplace “evolved,” we have a very close record of that history over the last thirty generations or so. The view that humans just showed up, as though they were born out of the earth is just as naive as the view that our interpretations of life are spontaneous.

I don’t know what you imagine to be “refuted.” I suspect you don’t either.

It’s true that a kind of “materialism” is generally popular in all the western countries, in the sense of a kind of “common sense” or popular view which is spontaneously present without any philosophy, and it has been that way since some time after the 2nd war in the English speaking countries. It was originally a philosophic view, as in several forms as in Hobbes and Mandeville for instance. As were a number of other views which people now have in the western countries, and almost everywhere, simply by being alive.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West".

Exacto. And neither will people in fifty years time think as one now does. However, this means those of us who see the evolution of the interpretation of things most clearly can potentially take control of our own understanding. Which is now primarily the leftovers of “everyone” as the garbage heap of the past interpreting for us.

[TheVisionofEr]

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

Why is the study of evolution of any value? After all, it is simply the past. The ideas that are now commonplace “evolved,” we have a very close record of that history over the last thirty generations or so. The view that humans just showed up, as though they were born out of the earth is just as naive as the view that our interpretations of life are spontaneous.

I don’t know what you imagine to be “refuted.” I suspect you don’t either.

It’s true that a kind of “materialism” is generally popular in all the western countries, in the sense of a kind of “common sense” or popular view which is spontaneously present without any philosophy, and it has been that way since some time after the 2nd war in the English speaking countries. It was originally a philosophic view, in several forms as in Hobbes and Mandeville for instance. As were a number of other views which people now have in the western countries, and almost everywhere, simply by being alive.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West".

Exacto. And neither will people in fifty years time think as one now does. However, this means those of us who see the evolution of the interpretation of things most clearly can potentially take control of our own understanding. Which is now primarily the leftovers of “everyone” as the garbage heap of the past interpreting for us.

[/quote]

[tapaticmadness]

I live in Kathmandu, Nepal, where I study Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and also their shamanism. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that Eastern philosophy is so very different from Western. There are many different Eastern philosophies and they all have their counterpart in the West. Also when you speak of non-dualism you seem to be referring to Vedanta, which is the politically correct philosophy here under the Modi government. There is nothing in Vedanta that is not also in Western philosophy. If you are talking about meditation and shamanism, then that too is in the West. The division you are making between East and West is not real. Human beings and the human mind is the same wherever you travel.

[Skepdick]

I live in Kathmandu, Nepal, where I study Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and also their shamanism. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that Eastern philosophy is so very different from Western. There are many different Eastern philosophies and they all have their counterpart in the West. Also when you speak of non-dualism you seem to be referring to Vedanta, which is the politically correct philosophy here under the Modi government. There is nothing in Vedanta that is not also in Western philosophy. If you are talking about meditation and shamanism, then that too is in the West. The division you are making between East and West is not real. Human beings and the human mind is the same wherever you travel.

Human beings are the same in some aspects and different in others. There are empirically testable/measurable differences in the ways Easterners and Westerners think/perceive.

The most contrasting one

Read this book The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why

So as a point of departure - Western Philosophy and its over-emphasis on logic/non-contradiction is different to Chinese thinking.

In the Chinese intellectual tradition there is no necessary incompatibility between the belief that A is the case and the belief that not-A is the case. On the contrary, in the spirit of the Tao or yin-yang principle, A can actually imply that not-A is also the case, or at any rate soon will be the case...

[Atla]

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

Why is the study of evolution of any value? After all, it is simply the past. The ideas that are now commonplace “evolved,” we have a very close record of that history over the last thirty generations or so. The view that humans just showed up, as though they were born out of the earth is just as naive as the view that our interpretations of life are spontaneous.

I don’t know what you imagine to be “refuted.” I suspect you don’t either.

It’s true that a kind of “materialism” is generally popular in all the western countries, in the sense of a kind of “common sense” or popular view which is spontaneously present without any philosophy, and it has been that way since some time after the 2nd war in the English speaking countries. It was originally a philosophic view, in several forms as in Hobbes and Mandeville for instance. As were a number of other views which people now have in the western countries, and almost everywhere, simply by being alive.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West".

Exacto. And neither will people in fifty years time think as one now does. However, this means those of us who see the evolution of the interpretation of things most clearly can potentially take control of our own understanding. Which is now primarily the leftovers of “everyone” as the garbage heap of the past interpreting for us.

You suspect wrong again. The ideas that there are any fundamental dichotomies, and fundamentally separate things, were refuted in the sense that there never was any evidence ever that would support these views. There is evidence for the fundamental non-separateness of things however.

It doesn't matter how far you evolve within the wrong metaparadigm, you only evolve to get better at epicycling.

[Atla]

I live in Kathmandu, Nepal, where I study Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and also their shamanism. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that Eastern philosophy is so very different from Western. There are many different Eastern philosophies and they all have their counterpart in the West. Also when you speak of non-dualism you seem to be referring to Vedanta, which is the politically correct philosophy here under the Modi government. There is nothing in Vedanta that is not also in Western philosophy. If you are talking about meditation and shamanism, then that too is in the West. The division you are making between East and West is not real. Human beings and the human mind is the same wherever you travel.

There are many Eastern philosophies, probably the majority are also dualistic there. Yeah pure nondual thinking is perhaps most closely approached by Zen buddhism and Advaita, and most Easterners don't understand it either. Human mind is roughly the same everywhere, and needs substantial effort to get to nondualism, which is a pretty alien form of cognition.
There is NO equivalent philosophy in Western philosophy, but Easterners usually don't realize this.

[TheVisionofEr]

My point is that an education in Western philsoophy is a waste of time, and most of our philosophers are arguing about nothing. Modern science has thoroughly refuted the dualistic metaparadigm that Western philosophy subscribes to. So like, "death by truth" to the n-th power.

Why is the study of evolution of any value? After all, it is simply the past. The ideas that are now commonplace “evolved,” we have a very close record of that history over the last thirty generations or so. The view that humans just showed up, as though they were born out of the earth is just as naive as the view that our interpretations of life are spontaneous.

I don’t know what you imagine to be “refuted.” I suspect you don’t either.

It’s true that a kind of “materialism” is generally popular in all the western countries, in the sense of a kind of “common sense” or popular view which is spontaneously present without any philosophy, and it has been that way since some time after the 2nd war in the English speaking countries. It was originally a philosophic view, in several forms as in Hobbes and Mandeville for instance. As were a number of other views which people now have in the western countries, and almost everywhere, simply by being alive.

"Everyone who has ever lived" isn't the same as "everyone in the West".

Exacto. And neither will people in fifty years time think as one now does. However, this means those of us who see the evolution of the interpretation of things most clearly can potentially take control of our own understanding. Which is now primarily the leftovers of “everyone” as the garbage heap of the past interpreting for us.

You suspect wrong again. The ideas that there are any fundamental dichotomies, and fundamentally separate things, were refuted in the sense that there never was any evidence ever that would support these views. There is evidence for the fundamental non-separateness of things however.

It doesn't matter how far you evolve within the wrong metaparadigm, you only evolve to get better at epicycling.

You suspect wrong again. The ideas that there are any fundamental dichotomies, and fundamentally separate things, were refuted in the sense that there never was any evidence ever that would support these views. There is evidence for the fundamental non-separateness of things however.

I find this empty apodictic blather. The problems are obvious and every thinking person admits them. Whether from the obvious standpoint of all of our immediate life experience, where we have ourselves alongside the things available to us, or in the forms of the current academe, the "mind body problem" and the study of so-called "consciousness."

This is also, more interesting a problem in the form of the gradual separation in the west over two thousand five hundred years, of two forms of causality. That which stems from voluntary actions informed by the understanding, and that which stems from supposed laws of the simple or non-animate particles. There is no reconciliation of the difficulty except, perhaps, as your existence suggests by its example, in the mind of the unthinking or sub-scientific public.

[Arising_uk]

You suspect wrong again. The ideas that there are any fundamental dichotomies, and fundamentally separate things, were refuted in the sense that there never was any evidence ever that would support these views. ...

Well apart from our whole sodding experience that is.

There is evidence for the fundamental non-separateness of things however. ...

Such as?

[Arising_uk]

To obstruct those deserving to be obstructed is, perhaps, best.

With respect to the English language Eric would disagree with you.

Since when has being obscure been of any gain to Philosophy?

[TheVisionofEr]

With respect to the English language Eric would disagree with you.

On what grounds?

Since when has being obscure been of any gain to Philosophy?

The most obvious example is what is said in the introduction to Hegel's most famous work with respect to speaking to the trained, rather than the untrained. The untrained want at once what is the prize of long study. However, the issue is hardly obscurity, but, rather, the wrong audience.

One may say, further, that in order to avoid the instinctive grip of what the understanding, like so many signals passed from ant to ant, unconsciously brings the public to believe, one must speak in a way that challenges the sleepy tendency of his or her eyes.

[tapaticmadness]

There are many Eastern philosophies, probably the majority are also dualistic there. Yeah pure nondual thinking is perhaps most closely approached by Zen buddhism and Advaita, and most Easterners don't understand it either. Human mind is roughly the same everywhere, and needs substantial effort to get to nondualism, which is a pretty alien form of cognition.
There is NO equivalent philosophy in Western philosophy, but Easterners usually don't realize this.

I fail to see the value of non-dualistic thinking. Why would one want to spend substantial effort to get there? I admit that I have an aesthetic approach to philosophy. There is an erotic object there that I desire. I am a theist. Many gods, many beings that turn me on. And with me it's all homoerotic. Charismatic shamanism. Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist - it's all there. I tremble at his approach. Your non-dualism strikes me as empty rationalism, so unattractive.