[INFP] Thread of Random Thoughts and Ideas - Page 3490

Thread of Random Thoughts and Ideas

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3490 of 3767 FirstFirst ... 2490 2990 3390 3440 3480 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3500 3540 3590 ... LastLast
Results 34,891 to 34,900 of 37669
Thank Tree81294Thanks

This is a discussion on Thread of Random Thoughts and Ideas within the INFP Forum - The Idealists forums, part of the NF's Temperament Forum- The Dreamers category; Originally Posted by MissAl There is this certain type of man, whom is cool and masculine, my INFJ dad is ...

  1. #34891

    Quote Originally Posted by MissAl View Post
    There is this certain type of man, whom is cool and masculine, my INFJ dad is always trying to impress, and later frustratingly labels as "drones".

    I label them as ISTPs.
    Probably 'cause they share the same functions
    Miss Thevious thanked this post.

  2. #34892

    Today I argued passionately without of losing composure, i.e. becoming upset, feeling hurt, crying afterwards out of frustration etc. I thought about it for so long. I don't know, but it was great. I don’t know if it’s because I had ruminated with these thoughts and feelings or been through so much for so long that it came out seamlessly. Or maybe I grieved it. Or maybe I had given up on reaching a resolution or having the other person understand, that it was easier not to have any expectations. So I just said everything, knowing that it was all I could do.
    Last edited by Gossip Goat; 10-07-2017 at 06:38 PM.

  3. #34893

    Quote Originally Posted by dlb View Post
     
    Kant believed ethics; thereby governance, should be determined by a consensus of the populace. Whereas, Hegel was far less interested in a consensus. He believed in something more chaotic. That we should develop our own laws and theorems on a much smaller level and allow economic theory to develop them into a larger theory. Meaning, some will naturally be rejected and others accepted. It's possible that both Hegel and Kant could have the exact same code-of-law, but the process differs entirely.

    Subjective means non-objective. Or, personal. It's a personal truth vs. universal.

    Phenomenology is a philosophy that applies meaning to experience. Meaning, if a person undergoes a significant experience (or even imagines she did, without it being true), that experience has authority to determine law.

    Truth implies authority.

    Subjective Phenomenological Truth - An individualistic and experiential truth that determines authority. In Hegel's case, law.

    Bio-politics is when the State has substantial control over resources necessary for life. For example, the Soviet Union with food. Or, the prison system.

    The quote from Lawrence is very good. Often, the underlying principles of important philosophers are unwritten. It's why, in my opinion, INFPs are the best Philosophers, because we can understand the heart of the writer. In graduate school, I argued endlessly with INTPs, only to eventually understand, they cannot understand the philosopher. They may be intrigued by the theory or logic, but they'll never understand the problem; thereby, the principles.

    I've found, and am rather certain at this point, the best way to understand a Philosopher is to read his work. Don't read secondary literature (Unless written by their best student). I've wasted thousands of hours reading useless material, only gaining further confusion. You just have to grind through it. Also, it's best to read two philosophers together. In particular, ones arguing at the same time period. Because, every idea is a response to another idea. Without the context, you're basically wasting your time. Bertrand Russel wrote a book called, "A History of Western Philosophy." Now, it's not the best regarding every philosopher. He even says so in the introduction. But, he provides an excellent context for you to put all of your knowledge within. He goes from the beginning of Philosophy to our most recent times and provides EXCELLENT historical context. Then, just read the major writers in proper order (or your interest) and fill in the historical context with the context of ideas. It took me 17 years to read every major philosopher and all their works (about 110 philosophers. I have a list somewhere if you want it).

    I'm saying Terrell Carver, the source for the writer of the article you originally posted attempts to understand Marx in a bubble. He doesn't attempt to understand Marx as a rejection of Spinoza -> Hume -> Kant -> Nietzsche -> Kierkegaard. Thereby, he's just talking in a bubble. He doesn't understand the reason Marx wrote. He doesn't understand who he's arguing against.

    That's because Marx is an economist first. He understands, markets exist independent of the elites, and knowledge must be readily accessible.
    Thank you, that clears things up a great deal, was a very explicit and clear break down of it.

    As an ideal standard, I hear the point that one should always read the works that a philosophers work draws from or is in reaction to otherwise one can't make appropriate sense of it. I like your point about emphasis on the principles because my own curiosity is spurred but wanting to understand how we come to the conclusions we do not in a strict sense of using logic merely as a tool for fun, but to make sense of anything and everything.
    101 Socrates and the Life of Inquiry (1990) - Rick Roderick
    A course in philosophy and human values may seem paradoxical because philosophy was that discipline in our traditions – that’s western traditions, western civilisation – that began with a search for unconditioned knowledge. Unconditioned by human knowledge, of things that transcend this world or any other. That tradition is very much alive in philosophy today, mostly in formal logic and mathematics, where it seems in place, and professional philosophers have a name for that tradition. It’s the “analytic” tradition in philosophy. A course in philosophy and human values has very little to gain from that tradition. And the reason for that, I think, is quite simple. It’s because philosophy and its interaction with societies, cultures, and in its historical context is very difficult to quantify; its very difficult to turn into a logical formula. And as a matter of fact no-one – I think, and I have met a lot of philosophers, since that’s sort of what I do for a living – has ever demonstrated that a deductive argument, a logical argument, one that’s purely formal, has ever solved a single philosophical problem. Except internally; the ones they made themselves. It’s kind of like housekeeping, where you spill the stuff, and then you clean it up, and then you spill it again… and a lot of analytic philosophy is like that.
    And it does feel to me that one would necessarily end up in error if one simply tries to adopt a method, but not even understand how one created the method and thus be sensitive it's limits and function. I see that what helps is seeing the goal or problems that one is working to make sense of, not sure why but it seems a good guide to having a feel as to whats going on. Even when I struggle to understand whats being said, this sometimes allows things to pop out at me. And I second guess myself as not necessarily understanding it as they meant it, but thats always the work in progress of connecting things up and having them changed partially because of their new associations.

    But considering your own account of feeling like wasted time with second accounts, I think i'll take your advice to heart. It gives me greater confidence that it's worthwhile approaching things directly and if I can't understand it to work my way towards it in some way. I've been too hands off with Marx which has left me with partial understanding and unable to illustrate things that I want and speculate that some answer is there within but outside my knowing.
    I do think I should go back to the basics and develop things more systematically, but I'm perhaps not so disciplined and have been spurred by curiosity where I become 'hungry' to complete certain things and move on. Though I often return as I repeat myself over and over a lot of the time which must be frustrated for everyone else, but its affirming the associations I've made, getting some use out of them so that they come more naturally.
    At this point I keep getting the feeling that I want to look at ancient philsophers, just a feeling that I'd be best served by understanding them since a lot of things seem to tie back to ideas they first had in some form.


    Ah, I get your point and this would relate to the point about understanding the principles rather than just extracting a method of thought and conclusions, but to try and be within the perspective of such thinkers. If that's the case of their work, then that's a fair limitation to point out.




    And as a random musing elsewhere that I wish to retain and perhaps come back to, the tilling over the soil kind of thing. Really, to work these together I would synthesize them into a more coherent piece than disparate quotations. But I kind of rushed it, making me think though that I really just need to do the leg work as this doesn't allow a person to engage what I'm still working through.

     
    That point about stories makes me think of how Indigenous people here used stories to pass down their knowledge to the next generations that served them well in understanding their own land intimately. But when it comes to myth I wonder if this is the tendency of humans to have their real world relations obscured in such meanings.
    Because we do not relate to the world directly but mediate it symbolically.
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...0/ideology.htm
    Thesis I. Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.
    This is where language is part of the making of meaning and part of how we mistake language for reality itself rather than a more partial abstract sense of it.
    What is a Subject? | Philosophical Explorations
    The reason for this confusion lies in the symbolic nature of the human subject. Language consists of a system of signifiers, and signifiers are a special class of non-natural signs. For them, the relation between the sign and what it signifies is not naturally determined; therefore signifiers can represent anything, even the void itself. Once humans begin to express themselves within language, by giving names to objects, or representing themselves within language through the pronoun “I,” a symbolic world of inner experience has been created. Symbols and signifiers that express the subject in relation to its environment are the materials that create meaning for us. The reality in which subjectivity constitutes itself is random and opaque; but the human being is a creature who is driven by this instinct to generate meaning, just like birds build nests. Everything that enters our lives becomes the material by which we create meaning and identity when it is translated into language. This meaning can range from mythologies, religions, philosophies and ideologies, to sophisticated scientific world-views. The events that form our lives are oftentimes trivial, random, or ugly, but they initialize our existence and make life real, not just a thought process. We begin to free ourselves from the randomness of these events by ritualizing them, repeating them, or assigning a meaning to them that originates in our needs rather than in reality itself. The constitution of subjectivity itself can be compared to the creation of a language.
    And this is where myth isn't restricted to that of religion, but part of the human condition to mystify things, to project one's consciousness as reality itself.
     
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/ily...deal/ideal.htm
    The very essence of fetishism is that it attributes to the object in its immediately perceptible form properties that in fact do not belong to it and have nothing in common with its sensuously perceptible external appearance.


    When such an object (stone or bronze idol, etc.) ceases to be regarded as “God himself” and acquires the meaning of an “external symbol” of this God, when it is perceived not as the immediate subject of the action ascribed to it, but merely as a “symbol” of something else outwardly in no way resembling the symbol, then man’s consciousness takes a step forward on the path to understanding the essence of things.


    For this reason Kant himself and Hegel, who is completely in agreement with him on this point, consider the Protestant version of Christianity to be a higher stage in the development of the religious consciousness than the archaic Catholicism, which had, indeed, not progressed very far from the primitive fetishism of the idol-worshippers. The very thing that distinguishes the Catholic from the Protestant is that the Catholic tends to take everything depicted in religious paintings and Bible stories literally, as an exact representation of events that occurred in “the external world” (God as a benevolent old man with a beard and a shining halo round his head, the birth of Eve as the actual conversion of Adam’s rib into a human being, etc., etc.). The Protestant, on the other hand, seeing “idolatry” in this interpretation, regards such events as allegories that have an “internal”, purely ideal, moral meaning.
    ...
    Marx characterises the commodity form as an IDEAL form, i.e., as a form that has absolutely nothing in common with the real palpable form of the body in which it is represented (i.e., expressed, materialised, reified, alienated, realised), and by means of which it “exists”, possesses “present being”.


    It is “ideal” because it does not include a single atom of the substance of the body in which it is represented, because it is the form of quite another body. And this other body is present here not bodily, materially (“bodily” it is at quite a different point in space), but only once again “ideally”, and here there is not a single atom of its substance. Chemical analysis of a gold coin will not reveal a single molecule of boot-polish, and vice versa. Nevertheless, a gold coin represents (expresses) the value of a hundred tins of boot-polish precisely by its weight and gleam. And, of course, this act of representation is performed not in the consciousness of the seller of boot-polish, but outside his consciousness in any “sense” of this word, outside his head, in the space of the market, and without his having even the slightest suspicion of the mysterious nature of the money form and the essence of the price of boot-polish.... Everyone can spend money without knowing what money is.
    Thinking and Being: Lacan versus Parmenides | Philosophical Explorations
    The correspondence theory utilizes a mirror model between subject and world; the removal of the mirror leaves us in the dark concerning the real.
    ...
    Representatives of the adequatio theory realized that although truth is always truth for somebody, it cannot be subjective. They argue that the subject has to be excluded from the definition of truth because we live in a common reality (the facts of the world are the same for all of us). The exclusion of the subject is done with the assumption that the mind – as mirror – is self-transparent and that the subject in its particularity can be separated from the epistemic process. Because human consciousness can be self-referential it is easy to assume that the “I” is identical with itself; the next step is the subtraction of the subject from the equation of truth, even if it is the subject that enunciates the truth-statement. For Lacan, then, the correspondence theory hides the deeper split between the subject and the real as well as the split within the subject itself. What remains is the construction of a common reality.
    ...
    The world is symmetrical to the subject — the world of what I last time called thought is the equivalent, the mirror image, of thought. That is why there was noth*ing but fantasy regarding knowledge until the advent of the most modern science.” 26
    https://larvalsubjects.files.wordpre..._of_kant12.pdf
    More intriguingly yet, Hegel Hegel’s account of essence rejects all transcendence in favor of appearances. For Hegel there is not one thing, essence, and another thing, appearance such that essences are transcendent to beings like Plato’s forms, or are unchanging and invariant like Aristotle’s essences. Rather, it is appearance all the way down and there is no further fact “beyond” the appearances that is hidden and that must be discovered or uncovered. Hegel will say, “Essence must appear.”4 The real surprise is that the mediation of essence is a reference to another appreance, not a distinct ontological entity to be contrasted with existence. Indeed, in the Science of Logic, Hegel argues that essence is relation. Thus, as Hyppolite recounts, “The great joke, Hegel wrote in a personal note, is that things are what they are. There is no reason to go beyond them.”5


    This is a striking claim that immediately brings Lacan’s discussion of objet a in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis to mind. There Lacan recounts the story of two artists named Zeuxis and Pharrhosios, locked in competition with each other to see who is the better artist. Lacan remarks that,


    "In the classical tale of Zeuxis and Parrhosios, Zeuxis has the advantage of having made grapes that attracted the birds. The stress is placed not in the fact that the grapes were in any way perfect grapes, but on the fact that even the eye of the birds was taken in by them. This is proved by the fact that his friend Parrhosios triumphs over him for having painted on the wall a veil, a veil so lifelike that Zeuxis, turning towards him said, Well, and now show us what you have painted behind it. By this he showed that what was at issue was certainly deceiving the eye (tromper l’oeil). A triumph of the gaze over the eye.6"


    The lesson to be drawn from this little parable is that the cause of desire-- not the object desired - -is precisely this enigma of what is behind the veil or curtain. As Lacan will recount elsewhere in The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, we can be naked precisely because we wear clothing. “Doesn’t she know she’s naked under those clothes!” What we have here is the logic of the secret or crypt. Analysis comes to an end when objet a falls away and the analyse and no longer attributes a secret knowledge to the analyst. Similarly, it can be said that metaphysics too needs to undergo analysis insofar as all too often it posits a true reality behind appearances in precisely the same way that Zeuxis believes there is something behind the veil painted on the wall.
    ...
    The point here is that the very idea of the thing-in-itself contains an internal contradiction insofar as it calls us to think a thing without determination, yet the very nature of a thing is to contain determinations. In the Phenomenology, Hegel shows that the distinction between the unknowable thing-in-itself as conceived by Kant and appearance is itself a distinction of the understanding, and therefore a product of thought.8 It is nothing but the ego’s reflection of itself into an other. That is, the thing-in-itself is identical to the ego, as a substrate divested of all concrete properties or qualities, a pure void as Hegel puts it, and therefore a phantasm of thought much like Zeuxis asking what is behind the veil.

    But its the case that we literally could not think otherwise until we had developed our existence over time that we could become self aware of how we imbue reality with our subjectivity (ideality).
    It took changing the conditions of our activity, to which labor became divided and some laboured on abstract things and eventually, we've made explicit and broken down the world into parts and pieces. But of course the reality isn't so broken down as it can be conceptually but is an integrated whole. So after the fragmentary consciousness that arises under capitalism, we can now emerge with explicit knowledge of things but be sensitive to our own manner of abstracting and the nature of reality in some way.
    Might be too bold but it does seem thanks to a history of thinkers in conjunction with the changes in mode of production and such, that we end up with a figure like Marx that brings our mind to the concrete in order to explain that which underpins consciousness and shapes it.
    https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12613281/index.pdf
    Even in the German Ideology, Marx explicitly points out that “circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstance” (GI. 165), and this sentence obviously shows that the real concrete’s relation to law, morality, religion, consciousness etc. is not one-sidedly determined. Of course, intellectual wealth directly depends on material conditions (GI. 154, 163, 166, and 172), but human beings affect and even change the material conditions and the circumstances in so far as it is possible for them to do so within the boundaries of the restrictions set by these conditions. Material conditions and intellectual wealth affect each other: “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness; is at firstly directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men” (GI. 154 italics mine)
    Our consciousness has a material basis rather than coming from a God imagined in our own image. Something which characterizes the history of mankind is our lack of awareness of ourselves and the nature of our consciousness and how it was implicated in our relation to reality.
    https://isfp.co.uk/russian_thinkers/evald_ilyenkov.html
    Evald Ilienkov worked out an original conception of ideality which was a creative development of Marx's theory of consciousness. It is well known that Marxist tradition has always insisted that knowledge derives from praxis. Following in that tradition, Ilyenkov suggested defining specific components of practical activity which directly form general impressions and abstractions. There are invisible schemes of praxis or operations, stereotypes and instructions of common human activity. Such components carry general information from things to mind. According to Ilyenkov, ideality is a form of human activity that is caused by forms of things which are drawn into the 'anthroposphere'. Thus, he strived to advance the principle of materialism and deduced a property of ideality from certain aspects of material praxis. As a result, ideality is an material-immaterial phenomenon that is born in the external material activity of people and corresponds to the facts, but at the same time ideality or schemes of activity do not contain materiality. Material praxis, by means of inner structures, takes a thing's measurements and carries this general information from the physical world into the world of human spirit. Ilyenkov's conception of ideality partially resembles Bridgman's conception of operational pragmatism.

    The overall point being that things are obscured by this symbolic relationship and it isn't restricted to modern bourgeoisie, although their ideology takes on a different form than under previous modes of production and organization. In some large part because of the material existence of people is so divided up, hence the fragmentary nature of human understanding in such specialization. Because labor itself is specialized and thus one's consciousness has a tunnel vision. Although luckily for some of us, we can get that classic liberal arts education or access information to help with our curiosities and dig deeper into wondering about the nature of things.
    And so I agree that the things that lead people to a conclusion of Spanish being somehow worse or bad is in part because of their conditions of existence with connotations of class and so on to which they have no explicit self awareness to why they think the things they do. They simply accept their conclusions with no thought as to what brought them to such a conclusion
    And this is the situation today in which rather than illuminate self awareness, our modern condition actively represses it.
    108 Philosophy and Post-Modern Culture (1990) - Rick Roderick
    Freud compares the conscious mind, in the book I have – I am talking about now – he compares the conscious mind to a garrison. A captured, tiny garrison in an immense city, the city of Rome; with all its layers of history, all its archaic barbarisms, all its hidden avenues, covered over by civilization after civilization. That’s our mind, that whole thing. But the conscious part of it is that one garrison that’s clear, that holds out in this captured city. A magnificent metaphor for all the surrounding motives, motivations, motifs, desires, that drive us… that are not philosophical… that cannot, even if we talk to our therapist a long time, all be brought up at once.
    ...
    So the goal of analytic treatment would be for those unreflected massive areas – again to go back to that metaphor of the city – to become part of the garrison as it spreads out to things we are clear about.
    ...
    The goal of a mass telecommunication culture is psychoanalysis in reverse. It’s that the little, last remaining parts of that garrison become unconscious. It’s precisely to reverse that process of enlightenment. Mass culture is enlightenment in reverse gear. Precisely to wipe out that last little garrison of autonomy. It is a constant assault upon it. That was why the last time I was out here, I approached it first from this religious angle of Kierkegaard’s, and characterised the assault as one that caused despair. Where despair was not a mood, but a structure that belongs to a captured garrison. Not an accidental feature of a captured garrison, but part of it. A structure of it. Fundamental to it.

    We are not only indirectly social in that commodities mediate our relationships and we imbue commodities with abstract ideals, but in this time with technology such as TV, the internet, things become even more obscured.
    http://www.antiworld.se/project/refe..._Spectacle.pdf
    The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.
    And so of course the tragedy here is people do as they do but they do not know why they do it. Many people given conscious understanding to themselves would likely be better people for it, the difficult part is how to cultivate as much if the self is 'under siege'. One is made to work so hard that they're reduced to an animal like existence.
    http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/...s_ETD_2011.pdf
    Because labor takes on such an unattractive character, instead of recognizing the labor process as the essence of human activity, workers feel that they are truly themselves and truly human only when they are at leisure or satisfying those needs which they have in common with animals.


    "As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.


    Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions. (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, MECW 3:275)"

    This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense | HuffPost
    Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It’s why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It’s more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that’s all you get. You’re probably not compatible with them for anything long-term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don’t plan long-term because if we do we’ll just get our hearts broken. It’s best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.
    mimesis and Allyrah thanked this post.

  4. #34894
    INFP

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
     
    Thank you, that clears things up a great deal, was a very explicit and clear break down of it.

    As an ideal standard, I hear the point that one should always read the works that a philosophers work draws from or is in reaction to otherwise one can't make appropriate sense of it. I like your point about emphasis on the principles because my own curiosity is spurred but wanting to understand how we come to the conclusions we do not in a strict sense of using logic merely as a tool for fun, but to make sense of anything and everything.
    101 Socrates and the Life of Inquiry (1990) - Rick Roderick

    And it does feel to me that one would necessarily end up in error if one simply tries to adopt a method, but not even understand how one created the method and thus be sensitive it's limits and function. I see that what helps is seeing the goal or problems that one is working to make sense of, not sure why but it seems a good guide to having a feel as to whats going on. Even when I struggle to understand whats being said, this sometimes allows things to pop out at me. And I second guess myself as not necessarily understanding it as they meant it, but thats always the work in progress of connecting things up and having them changed partially because of their new associations.

    But considering your own account of feeling like wasted time with second accounts, I think i'll take your advice to heart. It gives me greater confidence that it's worthwhile approaching things directly and if I can't understand it to work my way towards it in some way. I've been too hands off with Marx which has left me with partial understanding and unable to illustrate things that I want and speculate that some answer is there within but outside my knowing.
    I do think I should go back to the basics and develop things more systematically, but I'm perhaps not so disciplined and have been spurred by curiosity where I become 'hungry' to complete certain things and move on. Though I often return as I repeat myself over and over a lot of the time which must be frustrated for everyone else, but its affirming the associations I've made, getting some use out of them so that they come more naturally.
    At this point I keep getting the feeling that I want to look at ancient philsophers, just a feeling that I'd be best served by understanding them since a lot of things seem to tie back to ideas they first had in some form.


    Ah, I get your point and this would relate to the point about understanding the principles rather than just extracting a method of thought and conclusions, but to try and be within the perspective of such thinkers. If that's the case of their work, then that's a fair limitation to point out.




    And as a random musing elsewhere that I wish to retain and perhaps come back to, the tilling over the soil kind of thing. Really, to work these together I would synthesize them into a more coherent piece than disparate quotations. But I kind of rushed it, making me think though that I really just need to do the leg work as this doesn't allow a person to engage what I'm still working through.

     
    That point about stories makes me think of how Indigenous people here used stories to pass down their knowledge to the next generations that served them well in understanding their own land intimately. But when it comes to myth I wonder if this is the tendency of humans to have their real world relations obscured in such meanings.
    Because we do not relate to the world directly but mediate it symbolically.
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...0/ideology.htm

    This is where language is part of the making of meaning and part of how we mistake language for reality itself rather than a more partial abstract sense of it.
    What is a Subject? | Philosophical Explorations

    And this is where myth isn't restricted to that of religion, but part of the human condition to mystify things, to project one's consciousness as reality itself.

    But its the case that we literally could not think otherwise until we had developed our existence over time that we could become self aware of how we imbue reality with our subjectivity (ideality).
    It took changing the conditions of our activity, to which labor became divided and some laboured on abstract things and eventually, we've made explicit and broken down the world into parts and pieces. But of course the reality isn't so broken down as it can be conceptually but is an integrated whole. So after the fragmentary consciousness that arises under capitalism, we can now emerge with explicit knowledge of things but be sensitive to our own manner of abstracting and the nature of reality in some way.
    Might be too bold but it does seem thanks to a history of thinkers in conjunction with the changes in mode of production and such, that we end up with a figure like Marx that brings our mind to the concrete in order to explain that which underpins consciousness and shapes it.
    https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12613281/index.pdf

    Our consciousness has a material basis rather than coming from a God imagined in our own image. Something which characterizes the history of mankind is our lack of awareness of ourselves and the nature of our consciousness and how it was implicated in our relation to reality.
    https://isfp.co.uk/russian_thinkers/evald_ilyenkov.html



    The overall point being that things are obscured by this symbolic relationship and it isn't restricted to modern bourgeoisie, although their ideology takes on a different form than under previous modes of production and organization. In some large part because of the material existence of people is so divided up, hence the fragmentary nature of human understanding in such specialization. Because labor itself is specialized and thus one's consciousness has a tunnel vision. Although luckily for some of us, we can get that classic liberal arts education or access information to help with our curiosities and dig deeper into wondering about the nature of things.
    And so I agree that the things that lead people to a conclusion of Spanish being somehow worse or bad is in part because of their conditions of existence with connotations of class and so on to which they have no explicit self awareness to why they think the things they do. They simply accept their conclusions with no thought as to what brought them to such a conclusion
    And this is the situation today in which rather than illuminate self awareness, our modern condition actively represses it.
    108 Philosophy and Post-Modern Culture (1990) - Rick Roderick



    We are not only indirectly social in that commodities mediate our relationships and we imbue commodities with abstract ideals, but in this time with technology such as TV, the internet, things become even more obscured.
    http://www.antiworld.se/project/refe..._Spectacle.pdf

    And so of course the tragedy here is people do as they do but they do not know why they do it. Many people given conscious understanding to themselves would likely be better people for it, the difficult part is how to cultivate as much if the self is 'under siege'. One is made to work so hard that they're reduced to an animal like existence.
    http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/...s_ETD_2011.pdf



    This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense | HuffPost
    I've found you can learn more walking down a street once; rather then, run up and down it a thousand times. Take your authors very seriously. I have 3 pens (I use the Pilot G-2 0.38, black, blue and red) and a simple 6 inch metal ruler. Now, it seems silly, but I've gone through trying hundreds of pens and tens of rulers... These do what I want perfectly. I have about 100 backup of each color and 10 backup rulers. I'll never use them all. The point is this... develop a successful method of learning and stick to it.

    I started studying philosophy at a young age, because I wanted to escape from my personal world. I never wanted to be smarter or better than another. I never wanted to work in Academia. I just loved ideas.

    Rick Roderick missed an important point. EVERY PHILOSOPHER IS A FULL SKEPTIC. The reason why they develop their systems, is because they have to. I wrote something about this in brief: Dealing with Skepticism | David L. Bowman

    I'm currently writing something far more extensive that should clear up all those issues, but I'm not nearly done. Maybe I"ll do it tomorrow.

    There's no perfect methodology, because no methodology can account or model for everything. Every Philosopher is compromising. It's not what they think. It what they choose to believe when confronted with their skepticism. What path do they design for themselves.

    Seeing the problems is the only thing that will lead you to success. On every page there is black and white. The black of the ink and the white of the page behind it. But, the white has just as much meaning as the black. Meaning, you must understand what's behind the theory. WHY IS HE OR SHE WRITING THESE WORDS? If you don't know that, you cannot understand the Philosopher.

    Most writers are not intended to make sense at first. You need to finish the book and review every sentence in context with the others. Sometimes previous pages don't make sense until you see future ones. The writer is often complacent of the reason of his or her writing. Sometimes, his or her reasoning only appears at the end. We never know where we'll find his or her heart.

    The best way to assure understanding is to write and publish. It's nice because all of your errors will email you and tell you why you're wrong. Now, like most academics, they're morons. But, sometimes, you'll see something critical.

    You need to read the primary author. Don't be afraid. Knowledge won't hurt you. It might make you cry. It might make you feel uncomfortable. But, you'll remain standing. A true Philosopher wears his heart and mind on his sleeve. He stares into the pages of the great ones, with an open mind, with tears in his eyes, praying he can reconcile his heart with these new words. You must be fearless. Every page, word and letter is a battle. They're there to challenge and crush you. Stand up for yourself, be afraid, but be courageous.

    Don't over-worry about systems. Just read carefully and write something. Go slow and you'll see everything.

    The great philosophers methodology is non-existent. Even Spinoza, who's terribly logical. They follow their hearts, no their minds. Truth is not an arrow. It point here, then there, and here again. It's not something to follow. Truth are points on spiral that draw you closer and closer to it. Each word is another colored dot on the screen, and when you have enough of them, you see one image.

    ----------

    On your paper. Let me organize the thoughts... Oral tradition, Meaning is subjective and becomes confusing over time, not just religious, evolutionary meaning, no Gd, evo. meaning enters consciousness, culture changes adding more nonsense but also adds to awakening, causes confusing and we're becoming less evolved in some ways (or losing knowledge), causes chaos and the poor cannot deal.

    ------------

    This sounds like a historical analysis of how humanity accepts and evolves meaning. This is mostly within the realm of psychoanalysis. Freud, Lacan and Zizek are important here. There's been a lot of work done on this subject, but it's important.

    Freud's work is excellent here; as he connects evolutionary meaning to human necessities. Lacan improves and develops a predictive system for new situations. Zizek writes on present day and these types of things.

    I don't have much to say. I'm very familiar with the topic, but I've found it hard to write about. By definition, we've left our traditional social order and have become more independent. Therefore, it's hard to help a large group of people.

    -------

    You just need to start writing. Write, edit, add edit, publish. Whatever. Just get it done. If you're lackign content, you need to read more. Then write, edit, publish...
    Wellsy, mimesis and Allyrah thanked this post.

  5. #34895

    Why does Belgian beer have to be so amazing?

  6. #34896

    Quote Originally Posted by dlb View Post
     
    I've found you can learn more walking down a street once; rather then, run up and down it a thousand times. Take your authors very seriously. I have 3 pens (I use the Pilot G-2 0.38, black, blue and red) and a simple 6 inch metal ruler. Now, it seems silly, but I've gone through trying hundreds of pens and tens of rulers... These do what I want perfectly. I have about 100 backup of each color and 10 backup rulers. I'll never use them all. The point is this... develop a successful method of learning and stick to it.

    I started studying philosophy at a young age, because I wanted to escape from my personal world. I never wanted to be smarter or better than another. I never wanted to work in Academia. I just loved ideas.

    Rick Roderick missed an important point. EVERY PHILOSOPHER IS A FULL SKEPTIC. The reason why they develop their systems, is because they have to. I wrote something about this in brief: Dealing with Skepticism | David L. Bowman

    I'm currently writing something far more extensive that should clear up all those issues, but I'm not nearly done. Maybe I"ll do it tomorrow.

    There's no perfect methodology, because no methodology can account or model for everything. Every Philosopher is compromising. It's not what they think. It what they choose to believe when confronted with their skepticism. What path do they design for themselves.

    Seeing the problems is the only thing that will lead you to success. On every page there is black and white. The black of the ink and the white of the page behind it. But, the white has just as much meaning as the black. Meaning, you must understand what's behind the theory. WHY IS HE OR SHE WRITING THESE WORDS? If you don't know that, you cannot understand the Philosopher.

    Most writers are not intended to make sense at first. You need to finish the book and review every sentence in context with the others. Sometimes previous pages don't make sense until you see future ones. The writer is often complacent of the reason of his or her writing. Sometimes, his or her reasoning only appears at the end. We never know where we'll find his or her heart.

    The best way to assure understanding is to write and publish. It's nice because all of your errors will email you and tell you why you're wrong. Now, like most academics, they're morons. But, sometimes, you'll see something critical.

    You need to read the primary author. Don't be afraid. Knowledge won't hurt you. It might make you cry. It might make you feel uncomfortable. But, you'll remain standing. A true Philosopher wears his heart and mind on his sleeve. He stares into the pages of the great ones, with an open mind, with tears in his eyes, praying he can reconcile his heart with these new words. You must be fearless. Every page, word and letter is a battle. They're there to challenge and crush you. Stand up for yourself, be afraid, but be courageous.

    Don't over-worry about systems. Just read carefully and write something. Go slow and you'll see everything.

    The great philosophers methodology is non-existent. Even Spinoza, who's terribly logical. They follow their hearts, no their minds. Truth is not an arrow. It point here, then there, and here again. It's not something to follow. Truth are points on spiral that draw you closer and closer to it. Each word is another colored dot on the screen, and when you have enough of them, you see one image.
    In the link where it says...
    We have two choices. We can remain frightened and constantly question everything or we can run fearlessly into the void.
    It makes me think of these two things.
    Essentials For Nurturing Life
    Our lives are limited,
    But Knowledge is limitless.
    To pursue the limitless,
    With the limited
    Is Dangerous.
    Relating to the point that can't reach absolute truth and understanding and need to instead focus on what drives this because I noticed I had a thirst to understand somethings but it seems endless, impossible, overwhelming and so I needed a way out to go why do I put so much importance in this and suffer for it.
    Subject, Ego, Person | Philosophical Explorations
    As the “science” of desire and jouissance, psychoanalysis is the correlate to conjectural sciences. It starts with the discovery that human behavior and subjectivity are ruled by an unconscious will, and this discovery permanently damages the traditional theoretical perspective. We have reached a historical point where we realize that the search for meaning does not coincide with the quest for more knowledge. What binds them together is human desire, but its meaning remains unknown to us. The answers which we find in the search for more knowledge, only produce more questions. We find ourselves in the remote corner of a universe that resembles a construction zone of gigantic proportions, and we are, most likely, not even alone in it. But all this knowledge is useless when the question of desire is raised. At the most, it forces us to pursue the question with increased intensity. Religions give us speculative answers, but they, too, require the sacrifice of desire to the Other (God) in the hope of some future jouissance. Psychoanalysis allows a deciphering of the individual’s desire; in this regard it gives back to the individual what is most precious for it and completes what was already anticipated in the concept of the “person” throughout the centuries.
    Where for me it helps to know that within language, it's not reality itself but a manner of symbolically organizing it for ourselves.
    And that what ever the truth/reality is within itself, is beyond language...
    "The Dao which can be spoken of is not the eternal Dao. Those who speak do not know, and those who know do not speak"
    So I remind myself not to get too caught up in finding the end conclusion to philosophy because there is no final say, particularly as the world/reality itself changes.
    307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993) - Rick Roderick
    The fact that there is no final book, you know, one last master encyclopaedia containing all the wisdom, total coverage, final knowledge, the last book, none other ever needs to be written, Derrida considers that a reductio ad absurdum of the idea of perfect interpretation; the right interpretation.
    Which is useful for being sensitive that as reality changes, that one should be sensitive to the differences between the abstractions we make about it and what has actually occurred. Otherwise end up attached to ideas/images that have lost their place in reality.
    This help soothes me some of accepting that there is no end and not to be caught up wishing to find it.
    And so I agree, that no abstract model can cover it all and so there's necessarily things left outside of language, although some try to make language independent of reality.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...logy/ch03p.htm
    One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

    We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.
    As such there's no point trying to make a 'machine of the world'.

    "It's nice because all of your errors will email you and tell you why you're wrong."
    haha It's actually really good when the substantive critique gets in because you learn something. However, it does seem in trying to discuss it with someone who doesn't agree or understand, that I find myself refining my view or at least exploring things I hadn't previously. It becomes a bit of fun in simply exploring things out of curiosity but also having to tease out which parts both agree is right or wrong or the manner in which they are. I got myself into a whirl going way beyond my comprehension and just into the unknown on something about contradictions with Hegel and change and ended up discussing Zeno's paradoxes and the inadequacy of static abstractions in conceptualizing time and then a conclusion of an uncertainty principle and wondering how much was limits of the mind or nature of reality confusing myself into an unbridgeable split between self and world.
    Was a very hard discussion for me but it had some value in bring my thoughts through things I didn't have any sense of possibly being connected. Especially when it gets into the realm of quantum mechanics to which I don't wish to philosophize about that unless I;ve done the necessary study because it has a lot of whack stuff imported in association with it by some people.

    But you're right, it's uncomfortable and that's okay, courage doesn't require a lack of fear and discomfort but accepting it and going in anyway. Something that I've been trying to think about for a long time actually, in part because of personal issues about having clear desires and a will to assert them.
    My thought is chaotic rather than precise to which I try to defend my erraticness as curiosity ;) hahaha
    Whitehead on Causality and Perception – The Pinocchio Theory
    Despite this unexceptionable goal, however, Whitehead does not seem to think that the problem of error is of great importance. Indeed, he takes what most philosophers would consider a cavalier, and indeed irresponsible, attitude towards the whole question. For he holds that "in the real world it is more important that a proposition be interesting than that it be true" (PR 259). A scientific observation, a common-sense hypothesis, or even a rigorous philosophical formulation may have relevent and important consequences, despite the fact that it is erroneous. For this reason, Whitehead is less concerned with eliminating error than in experimenting with it, and seeing what might arise from it. Error is not an evil to be exterminated, but a frequently useful "lure for feeling" (PR 25 and passim). It is a productive detour in the pathways of mental life: "We must not, however, judge too severely of error. In the initial stages of mental progress, error in symbolic reference is the discipline which promotes imaginative freedom" (S 19).
    But I shouldn't disrespect the part that comes after the imagination that isn't too preoccupied by a fear of error and shape it up, edit it, distill it. I like to imagine once I can work like that, I might be able to be able to write something as simple and interesting as La Rochefoucauld. It really is just the discipline part, being able to focus consciously on things with purpose, intent, which I think is often lost for not having a mental landmark to keep me focused.

    I suppose this all makes me think why I've held of somethings that do clearly require a lot of attention and time.
    My reading habit has lacked that long term focus of making sure I come back to the thing day after day. I've done this with some works, I bookmark a text and piece by piece do the first light reading and then revisit it again.
    But I've been overly accustom to reading short journal articles and such with erratic pace, lacking the more enduring but rewarding experience of significant texts.


    ----------

    On your paper. Let me organize the thoughts... Oral tradition, Meaning is subjective and becomes confusing over time, not just religious, evolutionary meaning, no Gd, evo. meaning enters consciousness, culture changes adding more nonsense but also adds to awakening, causes confusing and we're becoming less evolved in some ways (or losing knowledge), causes chaos and the poor cannot deal.
    I guess in relation to the sentiment above about truth being reality which is outside of language and language organizes the meaning of our activity in relation to it is that language seems to be just that, like partial grasping of whats real.
    But that structure that helps us organize meaning in relation to the world is significant, it can mediate conscious and directed activity. Things are really difficult when we don't have the language to organize certain meanings, hence why we create concepts to help explain them.
    And the concepts are often based in new needs and functions of real life.
    So certain words and concepts emerge in a historically contingent way. It seems to me that a lot of things seek to minimize this and also our own reflecive sense of thought. It was a big deal for me when I got older to realize I could direct/manage my thoughts in some degree and not allow sad thoughts to rule over me. Similarly, with Marx or interpreters of Marx, it's helped me be more conscious of the way in which I abstract from reality.
    I get the sense that there's things that function to diminish an expanded sense of reality that is given by expanding consciousness and language in ourselves.
    Or that relates to the issue of 'awakening' I guess.

    Prior to that, I'm bit weaker on the whole ego injecting itself into things based on an empirical thing representing activity and impressions of other things. I really have to go over Evald Ilyenkov's Concept of the Ideal, one of my favourite things to have read, but I've only gone over it briefly, but it gave me a rush when I first read the opening paragraphs. I have to relate it to labour, the emphasis of how ones' activity informs one's consciousness and how labor changed over the complexity of society's mode of production. Which helps give a materialist base to certain ideas.

    ------------

    This sounds like a historical analysis of how humanity accepts and evolves meaning. This is mostly within the realm of psychoanalysis. Freud, Lacan and Zizek are important here. There's been a lot of work done on this subject, but it's important.

    Freud's work is excellent here; as he connects evolutionary meaning to human necessities. Lacan improves and develops a predictive system for new situations. Zizek writes on present day and these types of things.

    I don't have much to say. I'm very familiar with the topic, but I've found it hard to write about. By definition, we've left our traditional social order and have become more independent. Therefore, it's hard to help a large group of people.
    To the bolded, that is likely an apt summary of what I've gotten curious about as a consequence of trying to understand some people's views about the social nature of people, which has bled into some cursory glances as to something people denote as a structure versus agency issue or alternatively nature versus nurture (biological/social determinism).
    I don't think I will get any where to touching Lacan as he is someone that does seem to require the leg work to get anywhere near him. Expects you to read what he's read prior to the lectures sort of thing so you can be taken along on his journey.

    And fortunately I've done away with a feeling of prejudice that I think I picked up from peers in introductory psychology classes that didn't seem to take Freud seriously on some vague sense of not being empirical enough.
    It does seem that his interpretation of dreams would be an interesting read at the very least and seems pivotal to then thinking about thinkers that follow from him.

    -------

    You just need to start writing. Write, edit, add edit, publish. Whatever. Just get it done. If you're lackign content, you need to read more. Then write, edit, publish...
    Indeed, and I often do just dive into reading something that's caught my eye when I feel under stimulated and just kind of stuck. To find the novel perspectives that I've never thought of before.
    Last edited by Wellsy; 10-07-2017 at 11:31 PM.
    mimesis thanked this post.

  7. #34897

    No one likes (prefers) INFPs (Well 1 type..)... :( Also as an INFP, I do not prefer ENFPs.
    https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-pri...e-the-results/
    Enoch and dlb thanked this post.

  8. #34898
    INFP

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
     
    In the link where it says...

    It makes me think of these two things.
    Essentials For Nurturing Life

    Relating to the point that can't reach absolute truth and understanding and need to instead focus on what drives this because I noticed I had a thirst to understand somethings but it seems endless, impossible, overwhelming and so I needed a way out to go why do I put so much importance in this and suffer for it.
    Subject, Ego, Person | Philosophical Explorations


    Where for me it helps to know that within language, it's not reality itself but a manner of symbolically organizing it for ourselves.
    And that what ever the truth/reality is within itself, is beyond language...
    "The Dao which can be spoken of is not the eternal Dao. Those who speak do not know, and those who know do not speak"
    So I remind myself not to get too caught up in finding the end conclusion to philosophy because there is no final say, particularly as the world/reality itself changes.
    307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993) - Rick Roderick

    Which is useful for being sensitive that as reality changes, that one should be sensitive to the differences between the abstractions we make about it and what has actually occurred. Otherwise end up attached to ideas/images that have lost their place in reality.
    This help soothes me some of accepting that there is no end and not to be caught up wishing to find it.
    And so I agree, that no abstract model can cover it all and so there's necessarily things left outside of language, although some try to make language independent of reality.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...logy/ch03p.htm

    As such there's no point trying to make a 'machine of the world'.

    "It's nice because all of your errors will email you and tell you why you're wrong."
    haha It's actually really good when the substantive critique gets in because you learn something. However, it does seem in trying to discuss it with someone who doesn't agree or understand, that I find myself refining my view or at least exploring things I hadn't previously. It becomes a bit of fun in simply exploring things out of curiosity but also having to tease out which parts both agree is right or wrong or the manner in which they are. I got myself into a whirl going way beyond my comprehension and just into the unknown on something about contradictions with Hegel and change and ended up discussing Zeno's paradoxes and the inadequacy of static abstractions in conceptualizing time and then a conclusion of an uncertainty principle and wondering how much was limits of the mind or nature of reality confusing myself into an unbridgeable split between self and world.
    Was a very hard discussion for me but it had some value in bring my thoughts through things I didn't have any sense of possibly being connected. Especially when it gets into the realm of quantum mechanics to which I don't wish to philosophize about that unless I;ve done the necessary study because it has a lot of whack stuff imported in association with it by some people.

    But you're right, it's uncomfortable and that's okay, courage doesn't require a lack of fear and discomfort but accepting it and going in anyway. Something that I've been trying to think about for a long time actually, in part because of personal issues about having clear desires and a will to assert them.
    My thought is chaotic rather than precise to which I try to defend my erraticness as curiosity ;) hahaha
    Whitehead on Causality and Perception – The Pinocchio Theory

    But I shouldn't disrespect the part that comes after the imagination that isn't too preoccupied by a fear of error and shape it up, edit it, distill it. I like to imagine once I can work like that, I might be able to be able to write something as simple and interesting as La Rochefoucauld. It really is just the discipline part, being able to focus consciously on things with purpose, intent, which I think is often lost for not having a mental landmark to keep me focused.

    I suppose this all makes me think why I've held of somethings that do clearly require a lot of attention and time.
    My reading habit has lacked that long term focus of making sure I come back to the thing day after day. I've done this with some works, I bookmark a text and piece by piece do the first light reading and then revisit it again.
    But I've been overly accustom to reading short journal articles and such with erratic pace, lacking the more enduring but rewarding experience of significant texts.



    I guess in relation to the sentiment above about truth being reality which is outside of language and language organizes the meaning of our activity in relation to it is that language seems to be just that, like partial grasping of whats real.
    But that structure that helps us organize meaning in relation to the world is significant, it can mediate conscious and directed activity. Things are really difficult when we don't have the language to organize certain meanings, hence why we create concepts to help explain them.
    And the concepts are often based in new needs and functions of real life.
    So certain words and concepts emerge in a historically contingent way. It seems to me that a lot of things seek to minimize this and also our own reflecive sense of thought. It was a big deal for me when I got older to realize I could direct/manage my thoughts in some degree and not allow sad thoughts to rule over me. Similarly, with Marx or interpreters of Marx, it's helped me be more conscious of the way in which I abstract from reality.
    I get the sense that there's things that function to diminish an expanded sense of reality that is given by expanding consciousness and language in ourselves.
    Or that relates to the issue of 'awakening' I guess.

    Prior to that, I'm bit weaker on the whole ego injecting itself into things based on an empirical thing representing activity and impressions of other things. I really have to go over Evald Ilyenkov's Concept of the Ideal, one of my favourite things to have read, but I've only gone over it briefly, but it gave me a rush when I first read the opening paragraphs. I have to relate it to labour, the emphasis of how ones' activity informs one's consciousness and how labor changed over the complexity of society's mode of production. Which helps give a materialist base to certain ideas.


    To the bolded, that is likely an apt summary of what I've gotten curious about as a consequence of trying to understand some people's views about the social nature of people, which has bled into some cursory glances as to something people denote as a structure versus agency issue or alternatively nature versus nurture (biological/social determinism).
    I don't think I will get any where to touching Lacan as he is someone that does seem to require the leg work to get anywhere near him. Expects you to read what he's read prior to the lectures sort of thing so you can be taken along on his journey.

    And fortunately I've done away with a feeling of prejudice that I think I picked up from peers in introductory psychology classes that didn't seem to take Freud seriously on some vague sense of not being empirical enough.
    It does seem that his interpretation of dreams would be an interesting read at the very least and seems pivotal to then thinking about thinkers that follow from him.


    Indeed, and I often do just dive into reading something that's caught my eye when I feel under stimulated and just kind of stuck. To find the novel perspectives that I've never thought of before.
    Hmmmm, I like the little poem about limitless knowledge, but we should remind ourselves that this knowledge doesn't make us superior to anyone, nor really dangerous. This is a bit of an immature way to look at it. I have this thing I always say, "At the end of all paths lies the mirror of our authorities. Everything defines only itself. Don't confuse particular truths with tautology!" It's an audacious way of saying, knowledge is only reflective of itself. At first, it appears we've stumbled into a giant forest, but at the end we realize it's still just a single tree. As we move backwards we're moving only in our perception. I've found this to be true, in all cases.

    This blog article, "Subject, Ego, Person," is missing a key principle, humility. We've never quested for more knowledge. It's always been there. We don't create it. It's arrogant to think what we're doing is important. We're basically people walking on the beach looking for seashells. We didn't create them. We didn't wash them ashore. We're merely picking up what's in front of us. When we pick them up, we're only doing ourselves a service. Philosophy is inherently selfish. Our intentions are not to make anyone's life better. We discover the truth, because we long for it. I discovered a new word last month, "demisexual." It's really helped me, because it made me not feel alone. I'm not sexually interested in any woman, with whom I lack a deep emotional connection. But, I long for Philosophical knowledge. (Not in a sexual way), but I do lust for it. It keeps me up at night. I think about it all day. It's very possible those two things are related for me. I've become so selfish that I cannot find meaning in small things. I need to connect deeply. Both with knowledge and women. I wonder which came first, or if they came as a package.

    Everything we do is metaphorical. From our actions to our words. None of us speak the same language. All we can do is try to express our feelings and thoughts in a way which other people can relate to, and then seek out their truths. By the way, that's why it's so important to read the original source and worry less about the logic. You're reading the words of a person who can not fully express themselves. You must use your imagination.

    Regarding eastern daoism or buddhism, "High Fruition" or "Cessation of time and space," is the highest level of the meditative path. (Although, the path becomes more complicated the more times you complete it). We can't speak about it. There's no words. Even when we feel it, it's the most relaxing thing and painful thing at the same time. It exists for a millisecond then disappears. It's one of the difficulties of this plane. But, not all high-level knowledge or Truths exist here, there are lower ones to manifest as well. Then gain, these are only misunderstandings of the Truth, but they're getting closer.

    What Derrida says is absolutely correct, but I'll add value. What he says is objectively true, but not subjectively. The reason why he's objectively right, is because we all have different souls, and we each require different truths. Subjectively, we can find something that comforts our hearts. This is enough. When you can accept comforting subjective truth as "full reality" but not "everyone's reality" you've taken the next step.

    Reality doesn't change. Only our perception changes. It's why it's important to work very hard on arcane texts and interpret. There's a reason why every important philosopher has said the same thing. They're just saying it in different ways.

    Descending from the world of thought to the actual world isn't a difficult task confronting Philosophers. Because, if you can't do this, you're not a Philosopher. Maybe you're on your way, but you're not doing it. A Philosopher feels embattled by different opinions. Eventually, he or she crafts his or her own, then his or her world changes forever.

    Regarding blogging, who cares if your interlocutor has any idea what he or she is talking about. What's important is that you have more things to think about. They might say something stupid, but it gets the wheels turning. You're not looking for advice, you're looking for perspective. THEY CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND YOU, and you can never understand them. But, they can help turn you in a different direction and allow you to see the world from a different angle.

    Zeno's paradox is stupid. Math is human made. The world in all of its forms is divine. Mathematical infinity is not the same as the actual infinite. It's like trying to compare an acorn to an oak tree. They're on way different levels, and you cannot learn about one from the other. Except, the divine exists out of time and is unchanging and unreachable.

    "Glory then to Him who is such that when the intellects contemplate His essence, their apprehensions turn into incapacity; and when they contemplate the proceeding of His actions from His will, their knowledge turns into ignorance; and when the tongues aspire to magnify Him by means of attributive qualification, all eloquence turns into weariness and incapacity (Rambam - Guide to the Perplexed I.LVIII)."

    The Philosophy is inside of you. If you were born into an empty cell with unlimited sustenance, you could write your Treatise. Other writings only help you gain perspective on your own personal truth. By the way, you need to write yours down in order to help others. But, never think you'll be convincing. The moment you hear someone says, "I find 'x' to be absolutely right about everything," you can begin ignoring them.

    Regarding you personal blog on being good and something, It's important you realize there's different levels. At some levels you're something, at other you're everything and at some you're nothing. What's important is that we do the work where work can be done, and not worry about things that are impossible. I just wrote something down, which begins to explain this but needs more work. Principles | David L. Bowman

    Thought is always chaotic when in conflict. It means you need to keep thinking. I've found writing helps bring conflict down.

    Error is natures way of helping us grow. A man or woman who fears error, fears growth. You're undisciplined because you don't fully believe in your vision. You need to think internally and emotionally and discover why. Most often, it's not a fear of being wrong... it's a fear of being right. What if you can never fully be understood.

    I'm going to quote Rav Soloveitchik's MONUMENTAL work, Lonely Man of Faith a few times. It's important to mention it's written by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and mostly meant for Jews. Not in that the knowledge is useless for others, but it's method of communication is to a very particular crowd. (I actually have a Rabbinical Ordination from his top student, but I don't work as a Rabbi).

    "..., For all boundaries establishing "before," "now," and "after" disappear when G-d the Eternal speaks."

    "The Tower of Babel can be built high and mighty without beholding and acknowledging the great verity that Heaven is yet higher." ---- It's important to note that here Rav Soloveitchik believes, as I do, that the Tower of Babel is metaphorical and he reads it, as I do, as a warning for attempting to think too high. If you try, it will all come towering down and you'll be cursed. Now, G-d doesn't curse you, but you curse yourself, because you'll drive yourself into madness. We must remain humble before the impressionable.

    I can't quote this one sentence because it doesn't translate well, but it says something like this, "When man approaches his wife in intimacy, he has formed as close as a human connection as he can. But, it's in this moment, he is most alone, because he realizes that even his wife (the one who knows him best) cannot understand him."

    He closes the book with, "Despair and resignation were unknown to the man of the covenant who found triumph in defeat, hope in failure and who could not conceal God's Word." This is very important to think about.

    You spend too much time worrying. Just sit down and do the work. Read "The War of Art," by Steven Pressfield. This little book will solve that problem. If you could only take one piece of advice from me, it should be to read this book.

    You're habits lack out of fear. Fear of what... I don't know. Read the book above and you'll know for certain.

    There's no rush here. If you don't finish your Work in this lifetime, you'll find another. Better to get it done now though.

    Stop trying to organize meaning. Just organize perception. Meaning is top-down, whereas perception is bottom-up. Meaning, you can never fully understand meaning, but you can fully understand perception. This is where humility plays an important role.

    It's important to understand why you're interested in how humanity accepts and evolves meaning. It's not necessarily because you care about the topic. It's very (most likely) possible, you feel alone in your perceptions and are looking for guidance from others. You'll never find comfort in such a topic. Just do your Work.

    If you want a decent understanding of Lacan just read his lecteurs. They're about 120 pages, and they make little sense. Don't stop and think, just keep reading. He all comes back together. Also, I wrote the Wikipedia page on Lacan about 16 years ago (When I was 14). It's mostly intact, and accurate. Lacan was my first love. I had a lot of time back then, because I didn't go to class... I thought it was a waste of time. I was right.

    Freud is very serious. The silly people who don't get it, are just not worth listening to. They're the INTPs of the group. They lack heart. They don't get it. Lacan explains Freud beautifully. No reason to understand Freud completely. Just read the wiki. It's good enough. To be honest, Wikipedia is good enough for every philosopher, because their failures are just as significant as our own. I know Ph.Ds from top universities, and they also are wrong. We're all wrong, because we can never understand the Philosopher. What's important is that you gain perspective towards your own Philosophy.

    Freud's interpretation on Dreams is very important. Although, it can be summed up like this. You have a subconscious which has two types of knowledge. Evolutionary and personal. The evolutionary knowledge is hereditary. Meaning, how to find food and whatnot. It influences us. The personal is something spiritual. It comes out in all parts of our lives, but is most pure in dreams. It can never be interpreted by another, only by the self. The Psychoanalyst only helps the person come to his or her own conclusions. In truth, Theravada mediation is MUCH MUCH better than this. You'll be able to COMPLETELY tap into your subconscious.

    You're holding yourself to too high of a level. Eternally, you're not important. None of us are... Or, we're all ultimately important. In either case, you're not relatively more important than anyone else. No one cares about your work. And, the ones who do, are morons , who are unable to do their own work. Just be an perfectionist, and start Working.

    Buy that Steven Pressfield book NOW, and thank me when you're done. I guarantee it.
    Wellsy and mimesis thanked this post.

  9. #34899

    My mom is reading to me this conspiracy that Rebecca Black's Friday is actually about the JFK assassination and I am LIVING for it.
    Allyrah and dlb thanked this post.

  10. #34900
    INFP

    Quote Originally Posted by MissAl View Post
    My mom is reading to me this conspiracy that Rebecca Black's Friday is actually about the JFK assassination and I am LIVING for it.
    Please link <3
    Miss Thevious and Allyrah thanked this post.


     

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] Random thoughts/General discussion thread
    By MMtwenty in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 12-17-2018, 05:49 PM
  2. [ISFP] random business ideas
    By Pacifique in forum ISFP Forum - The Artists
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-01-2017, 11:38 PM
  3. [INTJ] Random thoughts.
    By TurquoiseSunset in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 06-15-2016, 07:05 AM
  4. [INTP] Random Ti/Ne-isms (Thoughts and Observations Thread)
    By AirMarionette in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 05:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:20 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0