Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[hegel]

Not happiness, but contentment [being ok with whatever comes your way].

Science gives us computers and ways to predict hurricanes. Practical stuff.

[impermanence]

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Our thinking makes "good and bad," correct? Actually, our thinking makes good and bad simultaneously as one can not exist without the other. Therefore they must co-arise and co-exist in equal proportion.

In the case of religion, the degree of subjective absurdity must equal the degree of subjective profundity. In other words, it is the truly bizarre nature of [the tale of] religion which allows its deeper [spiritual] meaning.

Although this principle applies to all things, it is easy to see as it applies to genius. Truly ground breaking thought is always mocked as being completely absurd [proportional to the degree of the breakthrough] until accepted when it it loses both its intellectual luster and wackiness.

[LuckyR]

If George Carlin were alive today, my bet is that he could come up with a routine every bit as effective [and entertaining] as was his assertion that the ultimate BS story was religion. Although by only a hair, I believe that science has outdone religion in almost every regard.

I will submit but two examples, Time and Mathematics, and hope that others will add to the evidence.

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"]. The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Mathematics [the language of science] is problematic for a host of reasons, paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than "1," but just as troubling is the fact that math breaks down at its extremes.

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion? After all, at least religion points in the right direction.

Posting online about the unreality of science is like using smoke signals to complain about fire.

[Count Lucanor]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Our thinking makes "good and bad," correct? Actually, our thinking makes good and bad simultaneously as one can not exist without the other. Therefore they must co-arise and co-exist in equal proportion.

Good and bad, either in terms of morality, aesthetics or utility, represents a measurement in our judgement. There's no reason to believe that there's a previously established rule or principle of equal proportion of good and bad in any given judgement.

In the case of religion, the degree of subjective absurdity must equal the degree of subjective profundity. In other words, it is the truly bizarre nature of [the tale of] religion which allows its deeper [spiritual] meaning.

There's no such rule that I know of. Something might be absurd and that's it, nothing in that absurdity will necessarily imply its contrary. Religion certainly runs contrary to depth of knowledge. Making a complicated mess out of absurd things is nothing profound.

[impermanence]

Posting online about the unreality of science is like using smoke signals to complain about fire.

I am not suggesting that things are non-existent, only that science can not represent their true nature [in that the human intellect is incapable of accessing Reality or reality].

[impermanence]

There's no such rule that I know of. Something might be absurd and that's it, nothing in that absurdity will necessarily imply its contrary. Religion certainly runs contrary to depth of knowledge. Making a complicated mess out of absurd things is nothing profound.

Count, you suggest that something can just be absurd in and of itself? Isn't it the case that something must be absurd relative to something else [that I assume is not absurd]? All things intellectual exist in dual-form. Good/bad, up/down, right/left, etc.

Religion contains every truth known to man. As well, it contains every absurdity. It's been around a very long time and has parried much deeper thrusts than are we capable.

[Count Lucanor]

There's no such rule that I know of. Something might be absurd and that's it, nothing in that absurdity will necessarily imply its contrary. Religion certainly runs contrary to depth of knowledge. Making a complicated mess out of absurd things is nothing profound.

Count, you suggest that something can just be absurd in and of itself? Isn't it the case that something must be absurd relative to something else [that I assume is not absurd]?

Something that is absurd does not comply with rules of reason or logic. It does not comply by not complying, it does not become reasonable by opposing to reason and logic, just as something cannot become true by being false.

All things intellectual exist in dual-form. Good/bad, up/down, right/left, etc.

Not necessarily:
Good - mediocre - bad
Up - middle - down
Right - center - left
Interesting - indifferent - boring
Positive - neutral - negative
Cold - warm - hot

Religion contains every truth known to man.

Religion is an abstract generalization of all singular religions, most of which are distinguishable from each other in the same degree that they can't agree on what is true. The "truths" claimed by one religion collide with the "truths" claimed by the others, so the claim that religion in general contains every truth is vacuous, in fact, the existence of so many religions is the best indication of their lack of commitment to universal truths.

As well, it contains every absurdity.

That is not for challenge.

It's been around a very long time and has parried much deeper thrusts than are we capable.

I personally think it's been around too much time and provided nothing but superstition and nonsense.

[Sy Borg]

There's no such rule that I know of. Something might be absurd and that's it, nothing in that absurdity will necessarily imply its contrary. Religion certainly runs contrary to depth of knowledge. Making a complicated mess out of absurd things is nothing profound.

Count, you suggest that something can just be absurd in and of itself? Isn't it the case that something must be absurd relative to something else [that I assume is not absurd]? All things intellectual exist in dual-form. Good/bad, up/down, right/left, etc.

Religion contains every truth known to man. As well, it contains every absurdity. It's been around a very long time and has parried much deeper thrusts than are we capable.

Absurdity in content appears to be chaos. There are always oddities in both the wild and in human societies (that sounds tautologous nowadays) that occur due to the chaos that lies within all systems.

Consider a large movement with a definite broad direction - technological progress. It too, has its absurd and chaotic elements that do nothing but, perhaps, entertain, eg. https://science.howstuffworks.com/innov ... famous.htm.

Despite the invention and, sometimes keen adoption of, absurdities like Snuggies, Fur Babies, pet rocks, Shake Weights, edible spray paint and egg cubers, technology marches forward. Religion is not quite same, being more akin to primitive science - the science that ancient people performed before the scientific method was understood and articulated. In time, like all superseded knowledge bases, it will be largely replaced with only its most potent elements retained long term, although other absurdities like cults of personality may pop up from time to time in religion's stead.

Perhaps a greater absurdity is how the survival drive that motivates us to protect our bodies can make life feel unbearable, all the while imbuing us with the desire to live forever. That's where religion comes from, trying to solve the problem of impermanence in the face of overwhelmingly powerful instincts that unreasoningly demand permanence.

[impermanence]

Perhaps a greater absurdity is how the survival drive that motivates us to protect our bodies can make life feel unbearable, all the while imbuing us with the desire to live forever. That's where religion comes from, trying to solve the problem of impermanence in the face of overwhelmingly powerful instincts that unreasoningly demand permanence.

Impermanence is an notion that few can fathom, that life is not this "movie" that goes on and on and on, but instead, it is discrete moments, each one born, has life, and dies completely outside of time. Impermanence is where Reality exists. Of course, it's not really this but... .

Permanence, otoh, gives rise to that which is knowable, that which comes and goes, that which has meaning, dimension, and temporal fluidity, i.e., our intellectual reality.

[Sy Borg]

Perhaps a greater absurdity is how the survival drive that motivates us to protect our bodies can make life feel unbearable, all the while imbuing us with the desire to live forever. That's where religion comes from, trying to solve the problem of impermanence in the face of overwhelmingly powerful instincts that unreasoningly demand permanence.

Impermanence is an notion that few can fathom, that life is not this "movie" that goes on and on and on, but instead, it is discrete moments, each one born, has life, and dies completely outside of time.

How do you mean that we live and die outside of time?

[Steve3007]

Who, apart from you here, has said "there are infinite times occurring at the the same time"?

By currently accepted definition, this would be the case, no?

No.

An observer is surrounded by objects [points, if you like] that are at various distances. The light reflecting off of each point and entering the observer's eyes [proceeding through to the visual cortex] takes an amount of time determined by the distance.

An amount of time as measured by whom?

Therefore, each point being at a different distance from the observer is also at a different time [although one observes these as simultaneous events].

At a different time as measured by whom? In your view, what does it mean, in terms of something that could be observed, to say "a point is at a different time to another point"?

Even if you are outside on a clear night and observe the light emanating from a star hundreds of millions of light years away and a tree also in your line of sight, you are observing the distant past and the near present simultaneously. How is that possible?

If I watch the movie Casablanca you could say that I'm observing the distant past. Would you also question how that is possible?


I think it would help if you go back to what Terrapin Station said when he proposed a definition of time. He said it is identically equal to change/motion. If you're not happy with that definition of time, do you have a different one in mind?

I don't disagree with Terrapin Station's definition of time. But I think another possible definition of time, which I think is equivalent to that but which brings the subject out of pure ontology and introduces epistemology, is that it is the thing which is measured by clocks, using the word "clock" in its broadest possible sense to include all natural "clocks". So when you make some proposition involving time such as "a point is at a different time to another point" you have to specify which "clocks" you're referring to in that proposition. If you don't do that then the proposition is, in my view, detached from any possible empirical observation and therefore detached from any possible Reality. It's just shuffling symbols/words around.

[impermanence]

Impermanence is an notion that few can fathom, that life is not this "movie" that goes on and on and on, but instead, it is discrete moments, each one born, has life, and dies completely outside of time.

How do you mean that we live and die outside of time?

What's Real exists outside of our perceptions. Our brain takes a version of what's Real and creates our personal reality, one constructed [and limited] by our intellect. Time is a feature of our thinking, not something that has any life on its own.

So, what we see as life is this intellectual construct defined by the concepts humanity has come up with over the millennia. Time is very important to our life-view but makes no sense at all. In fact, nothing else makes any sense either but we sort of ignore that inconvenient truth.

What is really taking place is far beyond our ability to understand [as understanding is not available in the current version of human beings]. The reasons for this are many but the fact that we cannot be present in the present is problematic. Add the fact that even the simplest of events is a confluence of an infinite number of events leading up to it, makes understanding difficult, to say the least.

So, we make stuff up. Whatever seems right or close is good enough [especially considering the fact that what is knowable by the human mind is a moving target, i.e., always changing]. I am not saying that the intellect is not useful, only that it has limitations and it is understanding these limitations that make it appropriately useful [sort of like knowing when to use a screwdriver as opposed to a hammer].

Actual Reality exists out of time because we can not access it with our intellect and time only exists intellectually.

[impermanence]

I don't disagree with Terrapin Station's definition of time. But I think another possible definition of time, which I think is equivalent to that but which brings the subject out of pure ontology and introduces epistemology, is that it is the thing which is measured by clocks, using the word "clock" in its broadest possible sense to include all natural "clocks". So when you make some proposition involving time such as "a point is at a different time to another point" you have to specify which "clocks" you're referring to in that proposition. If you don't do that then the proposition is, in my view, detached from any possible empirical observation and therefore detached from any possible Reality. It's just shuffling symbols/words around.

Using the speed of light as a standard, distance determines time.

Let's say you are floating out in the middle of space as an observer. There happen to be three objects [stars] visible to you [in your line of sight]. Star A is 100 LYs away, star B is 1000 LYs away, and star C is 100,000 LYs away. If you would agree that the light entering your eyes from each star took 100LYs, 1000Lys, and 100,000LYs to traverse space, then you are seeing three different times at the same time. You can interpolate this to represent our normal life where we are observing an infinite number of points at different distances. Therefore, time becomes meaningless [which it is].

The clock thing is another matter altogether.

[impermanence]

It's been around a very long time and has parried much deeper thrusts than are we capable.

I personally think it's been around too much time and provided nothing but superstition and nonsense.

I get that but you might consider opening your mind up to it and see the good, as well.

[Sy Borg]

How do you mean that we live and die outside of time?

What's Real exists outside of our perceptions. Our brain takes a version of what's Real and creates our personal reality, one constructed [and limited] by our intellect. Time is a feature of our thinking, not something that has any life on its own.

So, what we see as life is this intellectual construct defined by the concepts humanity has come up with over the millennia. Time is very important to our life-view but makes no sense at all. In fact, nothing else makes any sense either but we sort of ignore that inconvenient truth.

What is really taking place is far beyond our ability to understand [as understanding is not available in the current version of human beings]. The reasons for this are many but the fact that we cannot be present in the present is problematic. Add the fact that even the simplest of events is a confluence of an infinite number of events leading up to it, makes understanding difficult, to say the least.

So, we make stuff up. Whatever seems right or close is good enough [especially considering the fact that what is knowable by the human mind is a moving target, i.e., always changing]. I am not saying that the intellect is not useful, only that it has limitations and it is understanding these limitations that make it appropriately useful [sort of like knowing when to use a screwdriver as opposed to a hammer].

Actual Reality exists out of time because we can not access it with our intellect and time only exists intellectually.

Kant and science agree that what we perceieve is not *actual* reality. What we apparently observe is a simplified model of reality, a rough sketch. However, there remains some level of reality to our perceptions, just that what we can perceive with our little human brains and little human senses is very incomplete.

As for time, I too have the sense that we do not perceive the passing of time truly. Yet, our conceptions of time are obviously potent, because our ability to perceive the passing of time, to recall the past and project possible futures has given us a huge advantage over other species. To them, we would seem like a chess grandmaster, always a few moves ahead.

This begs the eternal questions, while we know we have limitations, just how real are our perceptions and how much do we miss?