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

[Sushan]

This topic is about the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Maestro Monologue: Discover your Genius, Defeat your intruder, Design your destiny by Rob White

you don’t live “in the world,” but rather you’ve created a world that lives in you, and what you understand about your world is always congruent with what you understand about yourself.

(Location 184 - Kindle version)

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

[stevie]

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

Like philosophical topics as such thinking about philosophical topics necessarily is inapplicable since the brain’s capacity has evolved for survival purposes but not for the purpose of fabricating philosophical questions and answers.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

Wow! From my point of view - but maybe from no other perspective! - there is so much about these questions that is simply wrong-headed.

"Prisoners" of limited perception? Really? We are what we are. Our limitations only mark the boundaries of what we can achieve. Why concentrate on the fences, instead of what they contain?

What "opportunity" is it that you refer to? You ask whether objective perception (for that is what you seem to be referring to here) is a "good thing or bad thing", without once considering our complete and total lack of access to objective perception? You're asking if we should choose something impossible, as though it was actually an option.

[funkadunk]

I don't think anyone is a prisoner to their own world, I think you've been reading into Plato's allegory of the cave too much.

If you realistically wanted to see the 'real world', it wouldn't be what you imagined.

Imagine a kaleidoscope of thoughts, memories, ideas and history meshed into one. That's what I believe the real world is, a cosmic, shifting being that is made up of everything we are plus more.

Maybe.

[gheinz]

1. The starting point of this consideration is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality due to our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. While it is not possible to go directly into the state of unselfishness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), fortunately there is an easy way to figure out, through simple logical deduction, how reality would present itself in that state.

2. The starting point here is the realization that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Using a simple inverse, we can now find that in the state of selflessness (where by definition there is no selfishness) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries, i. e. that it can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity. In the state of selflessness we would see things as they actually are. Our selfishness makes us believe that there are limits.

This means, for example, that death is not a limit.

[Sushan]

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

Like philosophical topics as such thinking about philosophical topics necessarily is inapplicable since the brain’s capacity has evolved for survival purposes but not for the purpose of fabricating philosophical questions and answers.

I cannot agree with that. Even the most primitive animal species are armed with survival skills which is proportional to their brain development. The evolution of animal brain shows that humans too carry the parts of brain (or its remnants) that helped all the other animals to survive through millions of years. But we have developed an additional part called cerebrum, which is responsible for the higher functions such as thinking, learning, memorizing, etc. I think we are totally capable of fabricating philosophical question and answers.

[Sushan]

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

Wow! From my point of view - but maybe from no other perspective! - there is so much about these questions that is simply wrong-headed.

"Prisoners" of limited perception? Really? We are what we are. Our limitations only mark the boundaries of what we can achieve. Why concentrate on the fences, instead of what they contain?

What "opportunity" is it that you refer to? You ask whether objective perception (for that is what you seem to be referring to here) is a "good thing or bad thing", without once considering our complete and total lack of access to objective perception? You're asking if we should choose something impossible, as though it was actually an option.

What do you mean by 'objective perception' here? Almost everything that we see, feel, and do are relative. A colour blinded one will not see red and green as the others do. So the perception and the level of experience are limited. But I do not think even such a fellow lives in a created world rather than the actual one. So, what is this objective perception which can be (or be able to do so) applied universally?

[Sushan]

I don't think anyone is a prisoner to their own world, I think you've been reading into Plato's allegory of the cave too much.

If you realistically wanted to see the 'real world', it wouldn't be what you imagined.

Imagine a kaleidoscope of thoughts, memories, ideas and history meshed into one. That's what I believe the real world is, a cosmic, shifting being that is made up of everything we are plus more.

Maybe.

I think Plato's 'cave allegory' can be applied to people those who do not look at the total picture, or are simply relying on what they believe as true. Such personalities are not rare, and I think they can be thought as people who live in their own worlds.

People tend to imagine and dream about idealistic worlds, and they become frustrated when they see how different the reality is. At the same time some people become depressed by thinking negatively about the heartbreaking nnature of the real world. All of these issues comes with the individual perception, which makes us prisoners in our own worlds.

[Sushan]

1. The starting point of this consideration is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality due to our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. While it is not possible to go directly into the state of unselfishness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), fortunately there is an easy way to figure out, through simple logical deduction, how reality would present itself in that state.

2. The starting point here is the realization that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Using a simple inverse, we can now find that in the state of selflessness (where by definition there is no selfishness) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries, i. e. that it can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity. In the state of selflessness we would see things as they actually are. Our selfishness makes us believe that there are limits.

This means, for example, that death is not a limit.

I can partially agree with you. We see what you want to see and we simply neglect what we do not want to see. So, almost always we are biased, ad that makes us subjective observers. But is it totally due to selfishness?

Assuming that you are relating a bit towards the teachings of buddhism, the main flaw of ourselves is desire as per the teachings in buddhism. Selfishness is a part of this vast concept of desire. Until we become able to totally shed off the 'desire', we will remain within the mortal boundaries. With the understanding of this and being completely devoid of desire will take us to the level that you explain where even death is not a limit.

[Pattern-chaser]

What do you mean by 'objective perception' here? Almost everything that we see, feel, and do are relative. A colour blinded one will not see red and green as the others do. So the perception and the level of experience are limited. But I do not think even such a fellow lives in a created world rather than the actual one. So, what is this objective perception which can be (or be able to do so) applied universally?

It seems I misunderstood what you are getting at.

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

Perhaps there is only one world, but (very) many perspectives on that world? We do not create our own worlds, I don't think, although we do indulge in many and various perspectives on the world.

The "real" world is just a way of identifying one particular perspective, and assigning to that perspective some sort of spurious superiority. It is valid and sensible to look at the world in different ways, according to our needs or intentions at the time.

So what are you asking here?

[gheinz]

1. The starting point of this consideration is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality due to our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. While it is not possible to go directly into the state of unselfishness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), fortunately there is an easy way to figure out, through simple logical deduction, how reality would present itself in that state.

2. The starting point here is the realization that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Using a simple inverse, we can now find that in the state of selflessness (where by definition there is no selfishness) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries, i. e. that it can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity. In the state of selflessness we would see things as they actually are. Our selfishness makes us believe that there are limits.

This means, for example, that death is not a limit.

I can partially agree with you. We see what you want to see and we simply neglect what we do not want to see. So, almost always we are biased, ad that makes us subjective observers. But is it totally due to selfishness?

Assuming that you are relating a bit towards the teachings of buddhism, the main flaw of ourselves is desire as per the teachings in buddhism. Selfishness is a part of this vast concept of desire. Until we become able to totally shed off the 'desire', we will remain within the mortal boundaries. With the understanding of this and being completely devoid of desire will take us to the level that you explain where even death is not a limit.

We are biased observers because we have our own desires, interests and needs. It's all selfishness, you also could call it self-care.
First of all, we don't know what the impact will be. Does that have any effect at all? Perhaps we still see things as they actually are. Or else we see things just not as they really are. We are initially in a state where we know nothing about this. There are of course other possible reasons why we don't see things as they are, e.g. hallucinations.

I'm not a Buddhist so I can't say much about this teaching. This is not about moral judgments, it is about the epistemic aspect of selfishness.
The philosophy I like the most is the Hindu Advaita-Vedanta philosophy. I intend to open my own thread where I would like to write more about this topic and its connection to Adavaita-Vedanta. I will then announce this here.

[gheinz]

I must be grateful to you for raising the question of the path to the goal of attaining the state of selflessness. I suspect that many who read the description of the goal thought to themselves, a nice theory but not for me because selflessness can only be achieved through personal sacrifice, which I don't want and therefore ignored the subject without discussing it further. It is evidently common that when one thinks of selflessness, one's first thought is of personal sacrifice. You too, Sushan, have thought about renouncing wish fulfillment.

My idea for the path is different. It involves no conflict with the legitimate concern for self-care.

[Sushan]

What do you mean by 'objective perception' here? Almost everything that we see, feel, and do are relative. A colour blinded one will not see red and green as the others do. So the perception and the level of experience are limited. But I do not think even such a fellow lives in a created world rather than the actual one. So, what is this objective perception which can be (or be able to do so) applied universally?

It seems I misunderstood what you are getting at.

Are we prisoners of our own worlds? Do we miss the opportunity to experience the real world? Creating your own world rather than seeing or living in the real world, is it a good thing or bad thing?

Perhaps there is only one world, but (very) many perspectives on that world? We do not create our own worlds, I don't think, although we do indulge in many and various perspectives on the world.

The "real" world is just a way of identifying one particular perspective, and assigning to that perspective some sort of spurious superiority. It is valid and sensible to look at the world in different ways, according to our needs or intentions at the time.

So what are you asking here?

I think you have already mentioned what I am asking. As you said, if we are looking at different perspectives of the world, we will never be able to see the real or the complete world, won't we? Even if we identify some perspective as 'real', who determines that? To what 'spurious superiority' we can assign that?

[Sushan]

1. The starting point of this consideration is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality due to our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. While it is not possible to go directly into the state of unselfishness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), fortunately there is an easy way to figure out, through simple logical deduction, how reality would present itself in that state.

2. The starting point here is the realization that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our selfishness (self-referal, egoism). Using a simple inverse, we can now find that in the state of selflessness (where by definition there is no selfishness) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries, i. e. that it can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity. In the state of selflessness we would see things as they actually are. Our selfishness makes us believe that there are limits.

This means, for example, that death is not a limit.

I can partially agree with you. We see what you want to see and we simply neglect what we do not want to see. So, almost always we are biased, ad that makes us subjective observers. But is it totally due to selfishness?

Assuming that you are relating a bit towards the teachings of buddhism, the main flaw of ourselves is desire as per the teachings in buddhism. Selfishness is a part of this vast concept of desire. Until we become able to totally shed off the 'desire', we will remain within the mortal boundaries. With the understanding of this and being completely devoid of desire will take us to the level that you explain where even death is not a limit.

We are biased observers because we have our own desires, interests and needs. It's all selfishness, you also could call it self-care.
First of all, we don't know what the impact will be. Does that have any effect at all? Perhaps we still see things as they actually are. Or else we see things just not as they really are. We are initially in a state where we know nothing about this. There are of course other possible reasons why we don't see things as they are, e.g. hallucinations.

I'm not a Buddhist so I can't say much about this teaching. This is not about moral judgments, it is about the epistemic aspect of selfishness.
The philosophy I like the most is the Hindu Advaita-Vedanta philosophy. I intend to open my own thread where I would like to write more about this topic and its connection to Adavaita-Vedanta. I will then announce this here.

Hallucinations, illusions, delusions are few among many things that can mask the real world and the reality. Yes, we know only what we see, and unless we are shown beyond that by someone, we just look at what we see and be content. This can be caused by selfishness, yes, I agree. But to see the most basic cause for everything we should go far back, and then we can see that selfishness too is caused by some other causes.

I would like to see your new thread. But please be kind enough to adhere to the forum guidelines since preaching is not allowed. Thank you.

[Sushan]

I must be grateful to you for raising the question of the path to the goal of attaining the state of selflessness. I suspect that many who read the description of the goal thought to themselves, a nice theory but not for me because selflessness can only be achieved through personal sacrifice, which I don't want and therefore ignored the subject without discussing it further. It is evidently common that when one thinks of selflessness, one's first thought is of personal sacrifice. You too, Sushan, have thought about renouncing wish fulfillment.

My idea for the path is different. It involves no conflict with the legitimate concern for self-care.

Quite true. Selflessness and self-care are two different things. One should care for one's own self before being selfless to either seek his/her own spiritual freedom, or helping others. Spiritual freedom is quite a big topic to discuss, and even bigger to truly understand. Personal sacrifices and selflessness are found along that pathway, and both are far more difficult to actually achieve than merely discuss about . Thank you for mentioning such deep thoughts and values.