Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am
It is said that there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempt to define it.
And for every definition there are as many interpretations. Hence the problem: philosophy diverges (into infinitely many perspectives), knowledge converges into succinct and usable tools. Sufficiently so that any two humans can actually reach consensus on issues of HUMAN importance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am
I have analyzed more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all over the world and I noted the essence of what is defined as philosophy is reducible to what I have abstracted from them.
And I have reduced the essence to one word. Curiosity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am
I have great admiration for Wiki as a convenient good starter, appertizer and gateway to further knowledge but obviously we need to understand its limitations.
It has no more limitations than any other publication platform/medium. The field of academia has its own set of problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect
http://theconversation.com/the-peer-rev ... pair-72669
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am
Wiki has come a long way since it started where all sorts of unpolished subjective views were thrown in.
That is interesting criticism - given that every single philosophical perspective is a subjective view ;)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:00 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am
Wiki has come a long way since it started where all sorts of unpolished subjective views were thrown in.
That is interesting criticism - given that every single philosophical perspective is a subjective view ;)
Yes, ultimately they are subjective, i.e. grounded on intersubjective polishing and consensus.

In the early stages the various contents in Wiki were like unpolished stones and gems included with tons of mud, dirt and sh:t.
But the more justifiable intersubjective views in wiki has since gone through many rounds of polishing thus relatively more reliable than the earlier versions. However what is given in Wiki still need to be subjected to further verifications with the original sources.

Unfortunately the tons of mud, dirt and sh:t are still there as such we need to tread very carefully.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:07 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:55 am
I have analyzed more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all over the world and I noted the essence of what is defined as philosophy is reducible to what I have abstracted from them.
And I have reduced the essence to one word. Curiosity.
I wonder? Have you read 500++ definition of what is philosophy?

What is philosophy is a very common issue within the philosophy community and forums.
Thus I deliberately make it a point to read and has covered 500+ definitions of 'what is philosophy' and obviously we have to define what is philosophy-proper.
What I came across is, most of the definitions of 'what is philosophy' commonly cover merely the form but not the substance of it.

Note the following forms of philosophy [Wiki];
  • Contents
    1 Introduction
    1.1 Knowledge
    1.2 Philosophical progress
    2 Historical overview
    • 2.1 Western philosophy
      2.2 Middle Eastern philosophy
      2.3 Indian philosophy
      2.4 Jain philosophy
      2.5 Buddhist philosophy
      2.6 East Asian philosophy
      2.7 African philosophy
      2.8 Indigenous American philosophy
    3 Categories
    • 3.1 Metaphysics
      3.2 Epistemology
      3.3 Value theory
      3.4 Logic, science and mathematics
      3.5 History of philosophy
      3.6 Philosophy of religion
      3.7 Philosophical schools
    4 Other approaches
    4.1 Applied philosophy
    5 Society
    6 Professional
    7 Non-professional
    8 Role of women
    9 Popular culture
One interesting point is,
there is a claim Greek Philosophy was heavily influenced by Indian Philosophy originally and a reversal in the modern era.

Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q&t=20s

Indian Philosophy and other early philosophies were mainly driven by the existential elements and thus primal.

Thus leading to my findings and proposal, philosophy-proper is basically a primal drive.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:07 am
I wonder? Have you read 500++ definition of what is philosophy?
More.

And then I understand computational linguistics and how language works, and how it doesn't. I also understand phenomenology.
And so besides the 500+ definitions I have read - I can INVENT a million definitions that are all internally consistent.

And all of which describe the same thing. It is because I understand how logic (language) works.

And so all philosophy is narration of human experience. But since the phenomenology of human experience is very similar - all philosophy is mostly equivocation.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:07 am
What is philosophy is a very common issue within the philosophy community and forums.
Thus I deliberately make it a point to read and has covered 500+ definitions of 'what is philosophy' and obviously we have to define what is philosophy-proper.
What I came across is, most of the definitions of 'what is philosophy' commonly cover merely the form but not the substance of it.
You don't need to define the ontology of philosophy any more than you need to define the ontology of a hammer. They are both tools.
So instead of defining it - just tell me what you use it for.

All philosophy is what Richard Rorty calls a Final Vocabulary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_vocabulary
Which makes me an Ironist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

I am an ironist who spent a lot of time around ashrams and gurus in his 20s only to end up at science's doorsteps ;)

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:00 am
In the early stages the various contents in Wiki were like unpolished stones and gems included with tons of mud, dirt and sh:t.
But the more justifiable intersubjective views in wiki has since gone through many rounds of polishing thus relatively more reliable than the earlier versions. However what is given in Wiki still need to be subjected to further verifications with the original sources.

Unfortunately the tons of mud, dirt and sh:t are still there as such we need to tread very carefully.
That is a fallacy of grey. You are equating flat and round Earth again ;) as if to say “philosophy is a polished stone”. It isn’t! Every philosopher I have ever read only sees part of the big picture. They interpret only part of the puzzle. The big picture itself is a holistic conglomeration of all of their perspectives. So you have to be just as cautious of mud, dirt and shit!

No, wikipedia is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But you offer no alternative (better!) mediums for acquiring broad and encompassing knowledge on a particular subject which contains less mud, dirt and shit.

Critique without providing alternatives is just diminishing the value of the tool. That is how "vaccines cause autism" comes about.

That is how militant atheism destroying religion while offering nothing of equal value comes about!

There is no science that can teach you what your emotional needs and desires are, but the scientific method is good at solving problems.

So if you think learning about yourself is a problem - here is a tool you can use to figure yourself out ;)

It has much higher SNR ratio than philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:12 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:00 am
In the early stages the various contents in Wiki were like unpolished stones and gems included with tons of mud, dirt and sh:t.
But the more justifiable intersubjective views in wiki has since gone through many rounds of polishing thus relatively more reliable than the earlier versions. However what is given in Wiki still need to be subjected to further verifications with the original sources.

Unfortunately the tons of mud, dirt and sh:t are still there as such we need to tread very carefully.
That is a fallacy of grey. You are equating flat and round Earth again ;) as if to say “philosophy is a polished stone”. It isn’t! Every philosopher I have ever read only sees part of the big picture. They interpret only part of the puzzle. The big picture itself is a holistic conglomeration of all of their perspectives. So you have to be just as cautious of mud, dirt and shit!

No, wikipedia is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But you offer no alternative (better!) mediums for acquiring broad and encompassing knowledge on a particular subject which contains less mud, dirt and shit.

Critique without providing alternatives is just diminishing the value of the tool. That is how "vaccines cause autism" comes about.

That is how militant atheism destroying religion while offering nothing of equal value comes about!

There is no science that can teach you what your emotional needs and desires are, but the scientific method is good at solving problems.

So if you think learning about yourself is a problem - here is a tool you can use to figure yourself out ;)

It has much higher SNR ratio than philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
Where did I claim Wiki is perfect?
There is no such thing as absolute perfection.

My point was,
if i were to mark [to some standards] the Wiki articles [re philosophy],
I would mark those articles in Wiki 20 years ago as 20/100 on average.

But now I would mark them 50/100 on average.
Thus the point is simply there is a relative improvement over time.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:12 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:00 am
In the early stages the various contents in Wiki were like unpolished stones and gems included with tons of mud, dirt and sh:t.
But the more justifiable intersubjective views in wiki has since gone through many rounds of polishing thus relatively more reliable than the earlier versions. However what is given in Wiki still need to be subjected to further verifications with the original sources.

Unfortunately the tons of mud, dirt and sh:t are still there as such we need to tread very carefully.
That is a fallacy of grey. You are equating flat and round Earth again ;) as if to say “philosophy is a polished stone”. It isn’t! Every philosopher I have ever read only sees part of the big picture. They interpret only part of the puzzle. The big picture itself is a holistic conglomeration of all of their perspectives. So you have to be just as cautious of mud, dirt and shit!

No, wikipedia is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But you offer no alternative (better!) mediums for acquiring broad and encompassing knowledge on a particular subject which contains less mud, dirt and shit.

Critique without providing alternatives is just diminishing the value of the tool. That is how "vaccines cause autism" comes about.

That is how militant atheism destroying religion while offering nothing of equal value comes about!

There is no science that can teach you what your emotional needs and desires are, but the scientific method is good at solving problems.

So if you think learning about yourself is a problem - here is a tool you can use to figure yourself out ;)

It has much higher SNR ratio than philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
Where did I claim Wiki is perfect?
There is no such thing as absolute perfection.

My point was,
if i were to mark [to some standards] the Wiki articles [re philosophy],
I would mark those articles in Wiki 20 years ago as 20/100 on average.

But now I would mark them 50/100 on average.
Thus the point is simply there is a relative improvement over time.
You are desperately avoiding the point!

If you rate Wiki as 50/100, what would you rate higher than 50/100 ?

What better alternative do you put forward for somebody starting from zero-knowledge?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:12 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:04 am

That is a fallacy of grey. You are equating flat and round Earth again ;) as if to say “philosophy is a polished stone”. It isn’t! Every philosopher I have ever read only sees part of the big picture. They interpret only part of the puzzle. The big picture itself is a holistic conglomeration of all of their perspectives. So you have to be just as cautious of mud, dirt and shit!

No, wikipedia is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But you offer no alternative (better!) mediums for acquiring broad and encompassing knowledge on a particular subject which contains less mud, dirt and shit.

Critique without providing alternatives is just diminishing the value of the tool. That is how "vaccines cause autism" comes about.

That is how militant atheism destroying religion while offering nothing of equal value comes about!

There is no science that can teach you what your emotional needs and desires are, but the scientific method is good at solving problems.

So if you think learning about yourself is a problem - here is a tool you can use to figure yourself out ;)

It has much higher SNR ratio than philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
Where did I claim Wiki is perfect?
There is no such thing as absolute perfection.

My point was,
if i were to mark [to some standards] the Wiki articles [re philosophy],
I would mark those articles in Wiki 20 years ago as 20/100 on average.

But now I would mark them 50/100 on average.
Thus the point is simply there is a relative improvement over time.
You are desperately avoiding the point!

If you rate Wiki as 50/100, what would you rate higher than 50/100 ?

What better alternative do you put forward for somebody starting from zero-knowledge?
Relatively I would rate Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at 80/100.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 am
Relatively I would rate Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at 80/100.
In 2018?!? A priori knowledge is the most harmful idea in epistemology!

Also - the fact that you are rating a single perspective higher than a collection of perspectives sure seems like dogmatism.

If you give Kant 80/100 then I give Wikipedia 95/100. And I am willing to provide Wikipedia alternatives to any "valuable" ideas you think Kant came up with.

All of Kant's philosophy falls flat on its face the moment one asks these three questions:
* What is the ontology of 'pure reason'?
* Is there a 'pure' vs 'impure'' (right vs wrong!) way to reason?
* How does one recognise (know!) if they are reasoning more 'purely' or more 'impurely' as they acquire new experiences? e.g progress or regress?

It fails to address ontology, morality AND epistemology!

To Kant 'reason' is a Weasel Word! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
His philosophy fails in exactly the same way as all Foundationalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism ) - Infinite regress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress )

What happens to your entire world-view if (when?) your fundamentals (a priori knowledge) get falsified?

As far as I am concerned there is no practical distinction between Foundationalism and Fundamentalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism ). Any perceived distinction is merely equivocation.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:00 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 am
Relatively I would rate Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at 80/100.
In 2018?!? A priori knowledge is the most harmful idea in epistemology!

Also - the fact that you are rating a single perspective higher than a collection of perspectives sure seems like dogmatism.

If you give Kant 80/100 then I give Wikipedia 95/100. And I am willing to provide Wikipedia alternatives to any "valuable" ideas you think Kant came up with.

All of Kant's philosophy falls flat on its face the moment one asks these three questions:
* What is the ontology of 'pure reason'?
* Is there a 'pure' vs 'impure'' (right vs wrong!) way to reason?
* How does one recognise (know!) if they are reasoning more 'purely' or more 'impurely' as they acquire new experiences? e.g progress or regress?

It fails to address ontology, morality AND epistemology!

To Kant 'reason' is a Weasel Word! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
His philosophy fails in exactly the same way as all Foundationalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism ) - Infinite regress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress )

What happens to your entire world-view if (when?) your fundamentals (a priori knowledge) get falsified?

As far as I am concerned there is no practical distinction between Foundationalism and Fundamentalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism ). Any perceived distinction is merely equivocation.
Btw have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [CPR] and his other two 'Critiques'?
If yes, how many times have you read the CPR?
How many hours have you spent of reading Kant?

If you have not done the following set;
1- read the CPR at least 10 times from front to back at one go and done extensive research and analysis on it, and confident you have understood Kant thoroughly,
2 - spent at least 800 hours on a Kant project specifically,
I would prefer not to discuss Kant seriously and in detail with you.

The above is the minimal [my view],
I have gone through the above set many times, i.e. >7500 hours.

Note, Kant's a priori was not carved in stone, but rather his concept of a priori was pointing to a light at the end of his 1800 tunnel with loads of provision to the future from his then limited available empirical knowledge.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:00 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 am
Relatively I would rate Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at 80/100.
In 2018?!? A priori knowledge is the most harmful idea in epistemology!

Also - the fact that you are rating a single perspective higher than a collection of perspectives sure seems like dogmatism.

If you give Kant 80/100 then I give Wikipedia 95/100. And I am willing to provide Wikipedia alternatives to any "valuable" ideas you think Kant came up with.

All of Kant's philosophy falls flat on its face the moment one asks these three questions:
* What is the ontology of 'pure reason'?
* Is there a 'pure' vs 'impure'' (right vs wrong!) way to reason?
* How does one recognise (know!) if they are reasoning more 'purely' or more 'impurely' as they acquire new experiences? e.g progress or regress?

It fails to address ontology, morality AND epistemology!

To Kant 'reason' is a Weasel Word! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
His philosophy fails in exactly the same way as all Foundationalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism ) - Infinite regress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress )

What happens to your entire world-view if (when?) your fundamentals (a priori knowledge) get falsified?

As far as I am concerned there is no practical distinction between Foundationalism and Fundamentalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism ). Any perceived distinction is merely equivocation.
Btw have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [CPR] and his other two 'Critiques'?
If yes, how many times have you read the CPR?
How many hours have you spent of reading Kant?

If you have not done the following set;
1- read the CPR at least 10 times from front to back at one go and done extensive research and analysis on it, and confident you have understood Kant thoroughly,
2 - spent at least 800 hours on a Kant project specifically,
I would prefer not to discuss Kant seriously and in detail with you.

The above is the minimal [my view],
I have gone through the above set many times, i.e. >7500 hours.

Note, Kant's a priori was not carved in stone, but rather his concept of a priori was pointing to a light at the end of his 1800 tunnel with loads of provision to the future from his then limited available empirical knowledge.
And that’s is the crux of it, don’t you think? ;)

How confident are YOU that you have understood Kant?
How do you know you have understood Kant?
How do you verify that you have understood Kant?

All three of those are epistemic questions.
And you can’t answer them with anything but opinion.

Because Kant isn’t here to test your (mis?)understanding. Arguing about how well you understand Kant is about as useful as arguing how well you understand the Bible! Interpretation ;)

While you have spent >7500 hours reading about how to reason like Kant, I have spent 30+ years practicing how to reason.

Reasoning is an applied activity! You can’t learn it from a book.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:10 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:42 am
Btw have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [CPR] and his other two 'Critiques'?
If yes, how many times have you read the CPR?
How many hours have you spent of reading Kant?

If you have not done the following set;
1- read the CPR at least 10 times from front to back at one go and done extensive research and analysis on it, and confident you have understood Kant thoroughly,
2 - spent at least 800 hours on a Kant project specifically,
I would prefer not to discuss Kant seriously and in detail with you.

The above is the minimal [my view],
I have gone through the above set many times, i.e. >7500 hours.

Note, Kant's a priori was not carved in stone, but rather his concept of a priori was pointing to a light at the end of his 1800 tunnel with loads of provision to the future from his then limited available empirical knowledge.
And that’s is the crux of it, don’t you think? ;)

How how confident are YOU that you have understood Kant?
How do you know you have understood Kant?
How do you verify that you have understood Kant?

All three of those are epistemic questions.
And you can’t answer them with anything but opinion.

Because Kant isn’t here to test your understanding ;)
I don't claim to know Kant philosophy 100% but at least 90% based on the time and effort I have put in plus that I am an average person interested in Philosophy.

In this particular case [specifically], this is my personal preference.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:10 am
I don't claim to know Kant philosophy 100% but at least 90% based on the time and effort I have put in plus that I am an average person interested in Philosophy.

In this particular case [specifically], this is my personal preference.
What is your objective scale for measuring whether it is 90% or 100%? What if you are mistaken and it is only 30% because you've misunderstood something critical?

I don't claim to have any interest in philosophy beyond using it as a tool for mastering the art of perspectivism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism ).

I do have interest in applied epistemology!

It is also my personal preference, but I am calibrated against reality. Not against my subjective interpretation of books.

Fundamentally- 4NT-8FP is a self-correcting system. The notion of 'reason' is not.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:10 am
I don't claim to know Kant philosophy 100% but at least 90% based on the time and effort I have put in plus that I am an average person interested in Philosophy.

In this particular case [specifically], this is my personal preference.
What is your objective scale for measuring whether it is 90% or 100%? What if you are mistaken and it is only 30% because you've misunderstood something critical?
The same dilemma is applicable to all past authors.

The 90% objectivity is based on all the understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's major theories that are expressed in his books in consensus within the Kantian community including some disputed points between various camps on certain critical issues.

It is possible that those who claimed to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant fully could be wrong. But that is beside the point as Kant is not available to confirm it at present.
However many questions were raised during Kant's time and he did explain whatever doubts that were raised.
He even wrote a Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, to supplement greater understanding of his Critique of Pure Reason.
Wiki wrote:Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science (German: Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können) is a book by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, published in 1783, two years after the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason. One of Kant's shorter works, it contains a summary of the Critique‘s main conclusions, sometimes by arguments Kant had not used in the Critique. Kant characterizes his more accessible approach here as an "analytic" one, as opposed to the Critique‘s "synthetic" examination of successive faculties of the mind and their principles.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am
The same dilemma is applicable to all past authors.
Exactly. But if we are to speak statistics here - something written in the last 20 years is far more likely to use the meaning of words as they are colloquially used (and therefore - as I understand them) than if it were written 300 years ago. Don't you think? Metaphysics is a tricky field!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am
The 90% objectivity is based on all the understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's major theories that are expressed in his books in consensus within the Kantian community including some disputed points between various camps on certain critical issues.
That is circular. How do you know that you understand? How do you know that the Kantian community understands? What if you are all, collectively wrong?

Your way of thinking about Kant is in direct opposition to the scientific epistemology (which is self-correcting). How do you test that you understand? How do you reproduce the understanding? How do you falsify your own claim to understanding?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am
It is possible that those who claimed to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant fully could be wrong. But that is beside the point as Kant is not available to confirm it at present.
That is PRECISELY the point. What does is mean 'to understand'? Is it a feeling or is it something that you can verify objectively?

Do you agree rhetorically or empirically? Because without empiricism you have nothing...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am
However many questions were raised during Kant's time and he did explain whatever doubts that were raised.
He even wrote a Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, to supplement greater understanding of his Critique of Pure Reason.
I would love to see Kant's analytic approach to analyzing the ontology of 'reason'. What does it mean 'to reason' ? ;)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest