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

[Sushan]

What do you really mean by the term 'self-delusion'? Is it related to 'self-reverence' or the narcissistic character of the winner? Or in case of the looser, the opposite?

The theoretical thought fabrications about winning or losing and courage are merely driven by self-delusion. If you just do this or that depending on contextual appearances there is no need to theorize about winning or losing and courage beforehand.

Thinking (or theorizing) about winning, loosing, and courage beforehand is a different thing. But, in most occasions life offers us competitions, and at the end of the day some will be winners and some will be loosers. If this is inevitable, what is so bad about theorizing about the result? Atleast you will be mentally prepared.

Like many others you seem to indulge in the self delusion I indicated. If you are free to decide to indulge in self delusion then you are free to do so. If not then not.

I cannot fully understand the concept of self-delusion. Can you please elaborate that to me? I see it as something lying above self-reverance or narcissistic personality.

[Sushan]

I agree with the quote. Winners that don’t try are losers. An ugly person with no personality will get nowhere with me…if I could get anyone….

The idea of try is important to success. Winners are people that give it their best and succeed.

There are occasions in which people just win even without trying. And there are occasions in which people give their best, yet end up failing. If trying was the best thing (even better than winning), such a quote should have come from a winner, which we usually do not see happening.

[stevie]

The theoretical thought fabrications about winning or losing and courage are merely driven by self-delusion. If you just do this or that depending on contextual appearances there is no need to theorize about winning or losing and courage beforehand.

Thinking (or theorizing) about winning, loosing, and courage beforehand is a different thing. But, in most occasions life offers us competitions, and at the end of the day some will be winners and some will be loosers. If this is inevitable, what is so bad about theorizing about the result? Atleast you will be mentally prepared.

Like many others you seem to indulge in the self delusion I indicated. If you are free to decide to indulge in self delusion then you are free to do so. If not then not.

I cannot fully understand the concept of self-delusion. Can you please elaborate that to me? I see it as something lying above self-reverance or narcissistic personality.

As already stated earlier I am applying the working hypothesis of "eliminative materialism" which entails that all mental phenomena are illusions (either useful, or neutral, or harmful). Therefore taking an illusion as reality is what is called "delusion".

[Sushan]

Thinking (or theorizing) about winning, loosing, and courage beforehand is a different thing. But, in most occasions life offers us competitions, and at the end of the day some will be winners and some will be loosers. If this is inevitable, what is so bad about theorizing about the result? Atleast you will be mentally prepared.

Like many others you seem to indulge in the self delusion I indicated. If you are free to decide to indulge in self delusion then you are free to do so. If not then not.

I cannot fully understand the concept of self-delusion. Can you please elaborate that to me? I see it as something lying above self-reverance or narcissistic personality.

As already stated earlier I am applying the working hypothesis of "eliminative materialism" which entails that all mental phenomena are illusions (either useful, or neutral, or harmful). Therefore taking an illusion as reality is what is called "delusion".

If we go into a more technical discussion all these words including delusion and illusion have seperate meanings. If we look at our particular discussion, should I take this term self-delusion as something supporting eliminative materialism, or something against that?

[stevie]

Like many others you seem to indulge in the self delusion I indicated. If you are free to decide to indulge in self delusion then you are free to do so. If not then not.

I cannot fully understand the concept of self-delusion. Can you please elaborate that to me? I see it as something lying above self-reverance or narcissistic personality.

As already stated earlier I am applying the working hypothesis of "eliminative materialism" which entails that all mental phenomena are illusions (either useful, or neutral, or harmful). Therefore taking an illusion as reality is what is called "delusion".

If we go into a more technical discussion all these words including delusion and illusion have seperate meanings. If we look at our particular discussion, should I take this term self-delusion as something supporting eliminative materialism, or something against that?

Since eliminative materilism eliminates itself - due to being mere concept which is a mental phenomenon - supporting/not supporting and contradicting/not contradicting do either not apply at all or do apply only as illusions.

[Sushan]

I cannot fully understand the concept of self-delusion. Can you please elaborate that to me? I see it as something lying above self-reverance or narcissistic personality.

As already stated earlier I am applying the working hypothesis of "eliminative materialism" which entails that all mental phenomena are illusions (either useful, or neutral, or harmful). Therefore taking an illusion as reality is what is called "delusion".

If we go into a more technical discussion all these words including delusion and illusion have seperate meanings. If we look at our particular discussion, should I take this term self-delusion as something supporting eliminative materialism, or something against that?

Since eliminative materilism eliminates itself - due to being mere concept which is a mental phenomenon - supporting/not supporting and contradicting/not contradicting do either not apply at all or do apply only as illusions.

In that case everything that we have discussed so far are mere illusions. Is there anything (excluding materialistic things) that can be taken as real?

[stevie]

As already stated earlier I am applying the working hypothesis of "eliminative materialism" which entails that all mental phenomena are illusions (either useful, or neutral, or harmful). Therefore taking an illusion as reality is what is called "delusion".

If we go into a more technical discussion all these words including delusion and illusion have seperate meanings. If we look at our particular discussion, should I take this term self-delusion as something supporting eliminative materialism, or something against that?

Since eliminative materilism eliminates itself - due to being mere concept which is a mental phenomenon - supporting/not supporting and contradicting/not contradicting do either not apply at all or do apply only as illusions.

In that case everything that we have discussed so far are mere illusions. Is there anything (excluding materialistic things) that can be taken as real?

Since it is a working hypothesis there is no claim about truth or reality involved. And since this working hypothesis has to be applied to itself what the working hypothesis calls "illusion" may either be an illusion or "illusion" may be itself an illusion.
So you see that the working hypothesis is of no use if it is intended to come closer to an imagined truth or reality because actually it doesn't assert anything that would require validation and leaves open everything that might be verbally expressed. So the function of this working hypothesis is merely to serve as conceptual framing for further verbal expressions in everday life and in this vein it is a perfect manifestation of a skeptical attitude.

[Sushan]

If we go into a more technical discussion all these words including delusion and illusion have seperate meanings. If we look at our particular discussion, should I take this term self-delusion as something supporting eliminative materialism, or something against that?

Since eliminative materilism eliminates itself - due to being mere concept which is a mental phenomenon - supporting/not supporting and contradicting/not contradicting do either not apply at all or do apply only as illusions.

In that case everything that we have discussed so far are mere illusions. Is there anything (excluding materialistic things) that can be taken as real?

Since it is a working hypothesis there is no claim about truth or reality involved. And since this working hypothesis has to be applied to itself what the working hypothesis calls "illusion" may either be an illusion or "illusion" may be itself an illusion.
So you see that the working hypothesis is of no use if it is intended to come closer to an imagined truth or reality because actually it doesn't assert anything that would require validation and leaves open everything that might be verbally expressed. So the function of this working hypothesis is merely to serve as conceptual framing for further verbal expressions in everday life and in this vein it is a perfect manifestation of a skeptical attitude.

So to have a balanced discussion and to remain with an open mind we may have to suspect everything, think that everything can be an illusion (even our existence), and think that we continously just express verbal phrases to merely continue a discussion on a working hypothesis. Does this make philosophy and the related discussions useless?

[stevie]

Since eliminative materilism eliminates itself - due to being mere concept which is a mental phenomenon - supporting/not supporting and contradicting/not contradicting do either not apply at all or do apply only as illusions.

In that case everything that we have discussed so far are mere illusions. Is there anything (excluding materialistic things) that can be taken as real?

Since it is a working hypothesis there is no claim about truth or reality involved. And since this working hypothesis has to be applied to itself what the working hypothesis calls "illusion" may either be an illusion or "illusion" may be itself an illusion.
So you see that the working hypothesis is of no use if it is intended to come closer to an imagined truth or reality because actually it doesn't assert anything that would require validation and leaves open everything that might be verbally expressed. So the function of this working hypothesis is merely to serve as conceptual framing for further verbal expressions in everday life and in this vein it is a perfect manifestation of a skeptical attitude.

So to have a balanced discussion and to remain with an open mind we may have to suspect everything, think that everything can be an illusion (even our existence), and think that we continously just express verbal phrases to merely continue a discussion on a working hypothesis. Does this make philosophy and the related discussions useless?

No, we don't "have to" do anything. I for my part can take any (philosophical) perspective I like at the moment and discuss anything from that perspective. And my working hypothesis (which is a meta-perspective) doesn't have to affect your (philosophical) perspective at all.
E.g. I take every appearance but don't speculate about it being an illusion or reality, exactly because the working hypothesis is applied to itself. Thus I am applying the neo-pyrrhonist attitude:

Those who claim that the Skeptics deny appearances seem to me not to have
heard what we say. For, as we stated above, we do not reject the things that lead
us involuntarily to assent in accord with a passively received phantasia, and these
are appearances. And when we question whether the external object is such
as it appears, we grant that it does appear, and we are not raising a question about
the appearance but rather about what is said about the appearance; this is different
from raising a question about the appearance itself.

Since most philosophical discussions are about "what is said about the appearance" (e.g. it is said "illusory" or it is said "real") often there is no motivation on my side to engage in corresponding speculations but sometimes I nevertheless feel inclined to simply express how appearances appear to me without being motivated to discuss these because appearances just appear as they do and there is no need and no basis for discussing appearances.

[Sushan]

In that case everything that we have discussed so far are mere illusions. Is there anything (excluding materialistic things) that can be taken as real?

Since it is a working hypothesis there is no claim about truth or reality involved. And since this working hypothesis has to be applied to itself what the working hypothesis calls "illusion" may either be an illusion or "illusion" may be itself an illusion.
So you see that the working hypothesis is of no use if it is intended to come closer to an imagined truth or reality because actually it doesn't assert anything that would require validation and leaves open everything that might be verbally expressed. So the function of this working hypothesis is merely to serve as conceptual framing for further verbal expressions in everday life and in this vein it is a perfect manifestation of a skeptical attitude.

So to have a balanced discussion and to remain with an open mind we may have to suspect everything, think that everything can be an illusion (even our existence), and think that we continously just express verbal phrases to merely continue a discussion on a working hypothesis. Does this make philosophy and the related discussions useless?

No, we don't "have to" do anything. I for my part can take any (philosophical) perspective I like at the moment and discuss anything from that perspective. And my working hypothesis (which is a meta-perspective) doesn't have to affect your (philosophical) perspective at all.
E.g. I take every appearance but don't speculate about it being an illusion or reality, exactly because the working hypothesis is applied to itself. Thus I am applying the neo-pyrrhonist attitude:

Those who claim that the Skeptics deny appearances seem to me not to have
heard what we say. For, as we stated above, we do not reject the things that lead
us involuntarily to assent in accord with a passively received phantasia, and these
are appearances. And when we question whether the external object is such
as it appears, we grant that it does appear, and we are not raising a question about
the appearance but rather about what is said about the appearance; this is different
from raising a question about the appearance itself.

Since most philosophical discussions are about "what is said about the appearance" (e.g. it is said "illusory" or it is said "real") often there is no motivation on my side to engage in corresponding speculations but sometimes I nevertheless feel inclined to simply express how appearances appear to me without being motivated to discuss these because appearances just appear as they do and there is no need and no basis for discussing appearances.

If everything are appearances, and if there is no need for or no basis in discussing about appearances, what are we actually doing discussing various working hypotheses? Is philosophy just a waste of time?

[stevie]

Since it is a working hypothesis there is no claim about truth or reality involved. And since this working hypothesis has to be applied to itself what the working hypothesis calls "illusion" may either be an illusion or "illusion" may be itself an illusion.
So you see that the working hypothesis is of no use if it is intended to come closer to an imagined truth or reality because actually it doesn't assert anything that would require validation and leaves open everything that might be verbally expressed. So the function of this working hypothesis is merely to serve as conceptual framing for further verbal expressions in everday life and in this vein it is a perfect manifestation of a skeptical attitude.

So to have a balanced discussion and to remain with an open mind we may have to suspect everything, think that everything can be an illusion (even our existence), and think that we continously just express verbal phrases to merely continue a discussion on a working hypothesis. Does this make philosophy and the related discussions useless?

No, we don't "have to" do anything. I for my part can take any (philosophical) perspective I like at the moment and discuss anything from that perspective. And my working hypothesis (which is a meta-perspective) doesn't have to affect your (philosophical) perspective at all.
E.g. I take every appearance but don't speculate about it being an illusion or reality, exactly because the working hypothesis is applied to itself. Thus I am applying the neo-pyrrhonist attitude:

Those who claim that the Skeptics deny appearances seem to me not to have
heard what we say. For, as we stated above, we do not reject the things that lead
us involuntarily to assent in accord with a passively received phantasia, and these
are appearances. And when we question whether the external object is such
as it appears, we grant that it does appear, and we are not raising a question about
the appearance but rather about what is said about the appearance; this is different
from raising a question about the appearance itself.

Since most philosophical discussions are about "what is said about the appearance" (e.g. it is said "illusory" or it is said "real") often there is no motivation on my side to engage in corresponding speculations but sometimes I nevertheless feel inclined to simply express how appearances appear to me without being motivated to discuss these because appearances just appear as they do and there is no need and no basis for discussing appearances.

If everything are appearances, and if there is no need for or no basis in discussing about appearances, what are we actually doing discussing various working hypotheses? Is philosophy just a waste of time?

As already expressed elsewhere philosophy seems to be a phenomenon caused by the brains extraordinary computational capacity being led astray by itself. Philosophy isn't needed for everyday life and survival which functions because individuals just follow appearances without needing to speculate about them.
Nevertheless once entangled in the net of ultimately useless philosophy there is no way out other than applying philosophical thinking. But if one never gets entangled but just follows appearances there is no lack.

[WindowtotheWorld]

To be courageous means being willing to face loss. Without this "facewardness" in the direction of pain or uncertainty, there can be no courage.

You can have daring, but not courage. To dare is only the preliminary step. However, it may take some courage to initially dare -- but once you've made that initial dare that required courage and henceforth only close your eyes and ears in denial of what's in front of you, well, that's the beginning of cowardice.

To be desperate means in some sense to have a relation to loss. So both of them are alike in that respect. But desperation is not a virtue (anyone can despair) - though it may be complimented by virtue - namely, what you bring to the table in response to that desperation, what you do with it. That shows your mettle in a way, and courage also has to do with proving your mettle.

I would also say that for all these reasons having a meaning for living, even an absurd one, is an essential component. And that leads on to self-worth. In the end it's about valuing yourself and others that gives purpose to life. In a way all these things are connected I think. Value and meaning.

[Sushan]

To be courageous means being willing to face loss. Without this "facewardness" in the direction of pain or uncertainty, there can be no courage.

You can have daring, but not courage. To dare is only the preliminary step. However, it may take some courage to initially dare -- but once you've made that initial dare that required courage and henceforth only close your eyes and ears in denial of what's in front of you, well, that's the beginning of cowardice.

To be desperate means in some sense to have a relation to loss. So both of them are alike in that respect. But desperation is not a virtue (anyone can despair) - though it may be complimented by virtue - namely, what you bring to the table in response to that desperation, what you do with it. That shows your mettle in a way, and courage also has to do with proving your mettle.

I would also say that for all these reasons having a meaning for living, even an absurd one, is an essential component. And that leads on to self-worth. In the end it's about valuing yourself and others that gives purpose to life. In a way all these things are connected I think. Value and meaning.

Indeed, the concepts of value, meaning, courage, and desperation are all interconnected. It is important to recognize that while participating and trying in the face of potential loss can be seen as a desperate measure, it can also be viewed as an act of courage. Courage, in this context, involves facing adversity, embracing the possibility of failure, and persevering despite the odds.

The ability to find meaning and value in our actions, regardless of the outcome, is a significant aspect of human resilience and personal growth. By focusing on the process and the effort put forth, we can learn from our experiences and develop a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

In this light, participating and trying, even when the outcome is uncertain, becomes a reflection of our character and self-worth. It is not merely about making a loss palatable but about embracing the journey, learning from our experiences, and growing as individuals.

[Sushan]

So to have a balanced discussion and to remain with an open mind we may have to suspect everything, think that everything can be an illusion (even our existence), and think that we continously just express verbal phrases to merely continue a discussion on a working hypothesis. Does this make philosophy and the related discussions useless?

No, we don't "have to" do anything. I for my part can take any (philosophical) perspective I like at the moment and discuss anything from that perspective. And my working hypothesis (which is a meta-perspective) doesn't have to affect your (philosophical) perspective at all.
E.g. I take every appearance but don't speculate about it being an illusion or reality, exactly because the working hypothesis is applied to itself. Thus I am applying the neo-pyrrhonist attitude:

Those who claim that the Skeptics deny appearances seem to me not to have
heard what we say. For, as we stated above, we do not reject the things that lead
us involuntarily to assent in accord with a passively received phantasia, and these
are appearances. And when we question whether the external object is such
as it appears, we grant that it does appear, and we are not raising a question about
the appearance but rather about what is said about the appearance; this is different
from raising a question about the appearance itself.

Since most philosophical discussions are about "what is said about the appearance" (e.g. it is said "illusory" or it is said "real") often there is no motivation on my side to engage in corresponding speculations but sometimes I nevertheless feel inclined to simply express how appearances appear to me without being motivated to discuss these because appearances just appear as they do and there is no need and no basis for discussing appearances.

If everything are appearances, and if there is no need for or no basis in discussing about appearances, what are we actually doing discussing various working hypotheses? Is philosophy just a waste of time?

As already expressed elsewhere philosophy seems to be a phenomenon caused by the brains extraordinary computational capacity being led astray by itself. Philosophy isn't needed for everyday life and survival which functions because individuals just follow appearances without needing to speculate about them.
Nevertheless once entangled in the net of ultimately useless philosophy there is no way out other than applying philosophical thinking. But if one never gets entangled but just follows appearances there is no lack.

I understand your perspective on the limited necessity of philosophy for everyday life and survival. However, I believe that philosophy serves a purpose beyond our basic needs. While it is true that appearances guide us in many aspects of our lives, engaging in philosophical discussions allows us to explore the deeper meanings, principles, and values that shape our understanding of the world and our place in it.

Philosophy can help us to develop critical thinking skills, enabling us to question and analyze the assumptions, beliefs, and values that guide our actions. In doing so, we can cultivate a broader, more nuanced perspective on life, which can lead to personal growth and a deeper understanding of ourselves and others.

While philosophy may not be essential for survival, it can enrich our lives by fostering a sense of curiosity, introspection, and empathy. It invites us to challenge our preconceived notions and develop a more thoughtful, informed, and compassionate worldview. In this sense, engaging in philosophical discussions is not a waste of time but an opportunity to grow and expand our understanding of the world and our place within it.