Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[amorphos_ii]

Unfathomable

I think the true nature of reality is unfathomable, we cannot call reality reality even, because some things are not real or true. Some say this is what God is, but god has a nature, he’s a he, a creator and what have you, all of which is not unfathomable.

I take solace in this. That by virtue of its indescribable nature, there can be us, we can have mind and be alive, even though there are no such things to be found wherever we look for them. That there can be a universe without anything that made it, nor possibly even without a beginning.

_

[Stoppelmann]

Unfathomable

I think the true nature of reality is unfathomable, we cannot call reality reality even, because some things are not real or true. Some say this is what God is, but god has a nature, he’s a he, a creator and what have you, all of which is not unfathomable.

I take solace in this. That by virtue of its indescribable nature, there can be us, we can have mind and be alive, even though there are no such things to be found wherever we look for them. That there can be a universe without anything that made it, nor possibly even without a beginning.
_

Understandable that you would think this, because there are natural limits to our ability to fathom the depths of existence, the vastness of the universe, and even the presence of consciousness in a creature at the edge of a galaxy, who looks out and ponders on his ability to ponder.

And yet people have, for as long as our sentience has allowed us to, tried to fathom reality, and tried to make sense of experience, using whatever means is available to us.

Would you suggest we just sit back and enjoy the journey, rather than dredging up as much understanding as we can?

[Pattern-chaser]

Would you suggest we just sit back and enjoy the journey, rather than dredging up as much understanding as we can?

I would! The correct approach — for me, at least — is to let the understanding trickle in gently, as I enjoy the journey.

I think the problem is the American Tourist Trap — "No time to look at the Eiffel Tower, Elmer, you can look at the photographs when we get home. We have only this afternoon to do Europe!" [This is a paraphrase of an actually-overheard RL conversation.]

If we are too phrenetic in our search for knowledge, we fail to experience it in the first place. I think real understanding arrives at a very, er, relaxed pace.

[Stoppelmann]

Would you suggest we just sit back and enjoy the journey, rather than dredging up as much understanding as we can?

I would! The correct approach — for me, at least — is to let the understanding trickle in gently, as I enjoy the journey.

I think the problem is the American Tourist Trap — "No time to look at the Eiffel Tower, Elmer, you can look at the photographs when we get home. We have only this afternoon to do Europe!" [This is a paraphrase of an actually-overheard RL conversation.]

If we are too phrenetic in our search for knowledge, we fail to experience it in the first place. I think real understanding arrives at a very, er, relaxed pace.

I completely agree, but I would still "dredge" as much as is possible, just in a more relaxed and meditative manner.

By the way, Australian friends of mine toured Britain in a similar manner, hearing exactly the same words, "you can look at the photographs when we get home!" When they arrived in Germany, we slowed down considerably ...

[Sculptor1]

Unfathomable

I think the true nature of reality is unfathomable, we cannot call reality reality even, because some things are not real or true. Some say this is what God is, but god has a nature, he’s a he, a creator and what have you, all of which is not unfathomable.

I take solace in this. That by virtue of its indescribable nature, there can be us, we can have mind and be alive, even though there are no such things to be found wherever we look for them. That there can be a universe without anything that made it, nor possibly even without a beginning.

_

Your post is not unfathomable. So that would indicate that not everything in the universe is unfathomable.
My view is that people brought up with ideas that are incoherent such as God potentially find themselves with such confusion as you exhibit.
You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.
Let's hope you can recognise animals in nature. Consider them a moment and ask yourself if they are in such existential confusion as you are.
No, they get on with their lives with apparent joy and success.
Nature is describable. We have science to do this, and it is a system which is self-verifying, rejecting things which prove to be unsustainable.

[Pattern-chaser]

You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.

I.e., pedantically-but-accurately, say more or less nothing about pretty much everything.

You may be (and remain) ignorant, but you won't be mistaken.

[Sculptor1]

You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.

I.e., pedantically-but-accurately, say more or less nothing about pretty much everything.

You may be (and remain) ignorant, but you won't be mistaken.

Even a person with the most limited imagination understands perfectly what I mean, unless you live in a 100% urban environment never seeing the sky or the wind on your face.

[The Beast]

You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.

I.e., pedantically-but-accurately, say more or less nothing about pretty much everything.

You may be (and remain) ignorant, but you won't be mistaken.

Ignorant is a strong, unfair judgement. IMO it is about the lessons learned. A loving mother of uncanny abilities might raise a consciousness of loving, constructive, positive (Steiner) outlook. An average consciousness is one dealing with feelings of adequacy and attention deficits. The programing of a negative outlook is not complicated. Dogs get beaten up, so they become mean. Average consciousness go to war as well and their views/judgements are changed forever in the course of their conscious/experience training. However. Stone cold words don’t mean risible outcomes. They are within the scope of human opinions.

[AmericanKestrel]

Your post is not unfathomable. So that would indicate that not everything in the universe is unfathomable.
My view is that people brought up with ideas that are incoherent such as God potentially find themselves with such confusion as you exhibit.
You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.
Let's hope you can recognise animals in nature. Consider them a moment and ask yourself if they are in such existential confusion as you are.
No, they get on with their lives with apparent joy and success.
Nature is describable. We have science to do this, and it is a system which is self-verifying, rejecting things which prove to be unsustainable.

If it is good enough for animals it is good enough for us? Do we model all our behavior and thinking as animals do? Do we even know what they are thinking?
Nature as we see it is describable. What we see and describe is not always reality. What we experience, the rising and setting of sun, is not reality. We innately know that there is something more to this that what is apparent. All you are doing is transferring your faith from your self that knows to science which can only decipher data and can be sometimes wrong.

[Sculptor1]

Your post is not unfathomable. So that would indicate that not everything in the universe is unfathomable.
My view is that people brought up with ideas that are incoherent such as God potentially find themselves with such confusion as you exhibit.
You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.
Let's hope you can recognise animals in nature. Consider them a moment and ask yourself if they are in such existential confusion as you are.
No, they get on with their lives with apparent joy and success.
Nature is describable. We have science to do this, and it is a system which is self-verifying, rejecting things which prove to be unsustainable.

If it is good enough for animals it is good enough for us? Do we model all our behavior and thinking as animals do? Do we even know what they are thinking?

We are animals. Yet we have constructed false idols and conceptual fantasies. You can count many things under this banner: money, nationhood, political ideals, and fairy tales.
Simply if you want to live a fathomable life then you need to live knowing these things are conceptual fantasies.

Nature as we see it is describable. What we see and describe is not always reality. What we experience, the rising and setting of sun, is not reality. We innately know that there is something more to this that what is apparent. All you are doing is transferring your faith from your self that knows to science which can only decipher data and can be sometimes wrong.

The sun does not set nor does it rise. We know that from science.
I have no faith in science, nor does science. It's only as good as it works. Science too can become infected with conceptual fantasies, but they always work themselves out.

[AmericanKestrel]

We are animals. Yet we have constructed false idols and conceptual fantasies. You can count many things under this banner: money, nationhood, political ideals, and fairy tales.
Simply if you want to live a fathomable life then you need to live knowing these things are conceptual fantasies.

We are biological just as animals and other things are. But we do not behave like animals. We don't have a breeding season, we don't migrate seeking water. So there is something different about us, we want to know why.

[Sculptor1]

We are biological just as animals and other things are. But we do not behave like animals. We don't have a breeding season, we don't migrate seeking water. So there is something different about us, we want to know why.

Wrong we do all of those things. and there are animals that do not do those things. There is nothing distinctly unique about humans except the skill people like you have to think you are better, and that there might be, (rather arrogantly) some sort of cosmic or supernatural reason that we are different. Well get this, all animals including us are different. We are, in the words of Robert Foley "Another Unique Species".

When you say "we", are you referring to the Royal "We"?. By what right do you speak for all humans?

[amorphos_ii]

Stoppleman

I wasn’t suggesting that at all, I absolutely do think we should try to fathom our existence.
What I am saying is that the unfathomable is itself a nature of existence! It is why we cannot draw any conclusions and only state that a given thing is ‘less wrong’, as opposed to something being absolutely correct.

For me it is better, because it means reality really has no limits. We cannot constrain it.

Sculptor 1

I am not confused, nor did I indicate that. Learn to read! I simply have an anarchic attitude to understanding, and this notion allows me to not lock reality in a box.

[Stoppelmann]

Stoppleman

I wasn’t suggesting that at all, I absolutely do think we should try to fathom our existence.
What I am saying is that the unfathomable is itself a nature of existence! It is why we cannot draw any conclusions and only state that a given thing is ‘less wrong’, as opposed to something being absolutely correct.

For me it is better, because it means reality really has no limits. We cannot constrain it.

Well, consider what I wrote before I asked the question, which really was inviting you to say more ...

Sculptor 1

I am not confused, nor did I indicate that. Learn to read! I simply have an anarchic attitude to understanding, and this notion allows me to not lock reality in a box.

Don't worry about him, he has a gripe now and then, accuses people of this and that, but as I said, I can understand why you would look into the vastness above you on a clear night and just say "WOW!" and then, "It is unfathomable."

[Pattern-chaser]

You might be better off if you reject the indoctrinations of your youth and proceed with things you can say about the world upon which you are on more solid ground.

I.e., pedantically-but-accurately, say more or less nothing about pretty much everything.

You may be (and remain) ignorant, but you won't be mistaken.

Even a person with the most limited imagination understands perfectly what I mean, unless you live in a 100% urban environment never seeing the sky or the wind on your face.

That may be so. But this is a philosophy forum, so one is expected (?) to wear one's 'Philosophy Hat'. And, wearing that particular Hat, we can say that there is very little "solid ground".

I think we can also observe that childhood "indoctrination" is called "education". It becomes indoctrination, or brainwashing, only when children are taught something with which you do not agree. We do our best for our kids, and sometimes we get things wrong. But we try, and most of us benefit muchly from the upbringing we receive, and the education we receive while growing.

Philosophically, even "seeing the sky or the wind on your face" is not necessarily 'solid ground'. It depends on the context of the (philosophical) discussion.

...

But you know all this, and yet you still object, and post your 'Certaintist' theories as if they were factual...?