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

[Spectrum]

Rorty is just an intellectual, not a mystic. He's limited. Check out Emanuel Levinas, whom i am tryingto figue out right now. He boggles the mind.

Levinas was never within my radar. What is so significant about his philosophy? If there is anything worthwhile, I'll take a look into them.

[Hereandnow]

Levinas was never within my radar. What is so significant about his philosophy? If there is anything worthwhile, I'll take a look into them

-- Updated July 20th, 2012, 3:10 am to add the following --

Yeah. But, alas, the best philosophy is the hardest. He is very hard. Iam reading totality and Infinity and I have a guide and I am looking into many resources, lectures. This actually makes him intelligible, but it does require some Husserl and Heidegger understanding. Phenomenology needs some background; Kant is essential. But you cn do this as you go. For me, since I am deeply interested in the way our limited empirical world reveals to us suggestions or intimations of the original, if you will, conditions of Being. For me, the question hinges on value. I want to know the logic of suffering; tht is, the meaning of value, joys, sorrows, terrible physical suffering, blissful emotional states---what are these? Why are they here? Why does Being do this, again, if you will, to itself? or to us; to that poor bastard who was tortured at a gulag; that innocent who was abused, strangled. These are questions I want to know about. They say T.S. Eliot could not forgive god for not existing. When I heard that, I knew that this was me. Levinas is about the other, the face of the other and how this moral experience, to witness the hunger in the face of the starving, say, is an imposition that issues from beyond the totality of western theory that informs the given moment (with such audacity). I am still breaking ice with this philosopher. Soon. He is Kierkegaardian in my thinking, so far.

[Spectrum]

-- Updated July 20th, 2012, 3:10 am to add the following --

Yeah. But, alas, the best philosophy is the hardest. He is very hard. Iam reading totality and Infinity and I have a guide and I am looking into many resources, lectures. This actually makes him intelligible, but it does require some Husserl and Heidegger understanding. Phenomenology needs some background; Kant is essential. But you cn do this as you go. For me, since I am deeply interested in the way our limited empirical world reveals to us suggestions or intimations of the original, if you will, conditions of Being. For me, the question hinges on value. I want to know the logic of suffering; tht is, the meaning of value, joys, sorrows, terrible physical suffering, blissful emotional states---what are these? Why are they here? Why does Being do this, again, if you will, to itself? or to us; to that poor bastard who was tortured at a gulag; that innocent who was abused, strangled. These are questions I want to know about. They say T.S. Eliot could not forgive god for not existing. When I heard that, I knew that this was me. Levinas is about the other, the face of the other and how this moral experience, to witness the hunger in the face of the starving, say, is an imposition that issues from beyond the totality of western theory that informs the given moment (with such audacity). I am still breaking ice with this philosopher. Soon. He is Kierkegaardian in my thinking, so far.

Noted. Post the significant (s) when you have gathered more.

[UniversalAlien]

'The contents of the mind' ??? What does that mean? In the last few seconds the contents of my mind has changed; As you read this the contents of your mind has changed. How can you define the contents of the mind? You can not; just as in the same way you can not define or prove a fixed reality, you can not define a mind of fixed contents as it does not exist. And as to the question of science observing - science does not observe, man makes observations and calls some of them science - science is a descriptive term for a form of observation not an observing entity.

Hopefully you can now observe that we have added content to your mind and hopefully this will give you a better understanding of science.

[Hereandnow]

Well Heraclitus, you do have to give language a little patience here. After all, If there are no contents of the mind, then how can i conceive of this response. Let us allow 'contents' to include the ever changing processes that characterize mental events, though not falling prey to the illusion that things are still an fixed. We can say 'contents' without the entailment of 'fixity' since the former by no means logically requires the latter. And kindly excuse the metonymy saying it was science observing; it was just a manner of speaking. I hope you have a better understanding expressing ideas now.

[Granth]

Yes, Hereandnow, I can address this question or claim. There is no "outside of mind". Everything that appears to happen outside must be happening inside. If it wasn't happening inside then it wouldn't be appearing to mind.

[Hereandnow]

Yes, Hereandnow, I can address this question or claim. There is no "outside of mind". Everything that appears to happen outside must be happening inside. If it wasn't happening inside then it wouldn't be appearing to mind.

[UniversalAlien]

Well Heraclitus, you do have to give language a little patience here. After all, If there are no contents of the mind, then how can i conceive of this response. Let us allow 'contents' to include the ever changing processes that characterize mental events, though not falling prey to the illusion that things are still an fixed. We can say 'contents' without the entailment of 'fixity' since the former by no means logically requires the latter. And kindly excuse the metonymy saying it was science observing; it was just a manner of speaking. I hope you have a better understanding expressing ideas now.

Seems to me that if your original assertion were fact there would be no progress, no scientific advancement; Or you could say we already 'know it all' and only have to look inside our psyches to find the answers. This, of course, is not true and scientific knowledge continues to progress and expand - and does so because of discoveries external to the mind attempting to comprehend. Of course your assertion might be true if the universe is as Buddhism teaches and we are all part of one mind.

[Hereandnow]

Granth: Then how do you explain the regularity with which things operate? they come and go, yet they remain the same in their characteristics.

-- Updated July 21st, 2012, 12:45 am to add the following --

Seems to me that if your original assertion were fact there would be no progress, no scientific advancement; Or you could say we already 'know it all' and only have to look inside our psyches to find the answers. This, of course, is not true and scientific knowledge continues to progress and expand - and does so because of discoveries external to the mind attempting to comprehend. Of course your assertion might be true if the universe is as Buddhism teaches and we are all part of one mind.

Well Universalalien, I am not aware that Buddhism teaches we are all part of one mind. There could be some Mahayana strain. Regarding the first, It being in the mind, all of it does not require that there be influence; it could be that out there" has "causal," (though this word issues frm the interior of my mind, obviously; so at best we can only use available vocaulary: alas, "causality" is the best I can say given the limitations)impact, that is, critical causal impact,but otherwise there is nothing else one can say. e make progress because our pragmatic empirical reality works! And that is all you need.

[Granth]

Your observation of "regularity" and your observation of things "remaining the same characteristically" is happening within mind. In other words, whatever you (your mind) wants to see, it will see. This is the incredible aspect of the individual. Every mind brings something else to mind. Ultimately it is all nonsense, but can be quite wonderful nonsense. By " nonsense" I simply mean that no thing or individual, or collective within a group of individuals, will know the ultimate answer to everything. Is knowing the ultimate answer to everything the game of philosophy? I thought such pursuits were for science and religion.

[Hereandnow]

Your observation of "regularity" and your observation of things "remaining the same characteristically" is happening within mind. In other words, whatever you (your mind) wants to see, it will see. This is the incredible aspect of the individual. Every mind brings something else to mind. Ultimately it is all nonsense, but can be quite wonderful nonsense. By " nonsense" I simply mean that no thing or individual, or collective within a group of individuals, will know the ultimate answer to everything. Is knowing the ultimate answer to everything the game of philosophy? I thought such pursuits were for science and religion.

What you are defending is called idealism. See George Berkeley. It is not a popular view. A qualified idealism is better. Kant had his noumena. Phenomeology is probably the way to go: IT dismisses dualities altogether all metaphysics simply because withever is beyond the pale of palpable experience is not a thing to be talked about. Wittgenstein: That of which nothing can be said, one must be silent. A paraphrase but so what. But just because these guys do not want anything to do with metaphsyics does not mean they do not think there is "something" there. It would be foolish to think otherwise. It's just that there is nothing to say. It is like talking about god, says Rorty: That's why they have words like 'ineffability.'

[Granth]

What you are defending is called idealism. See George Berkeley. It is not a popular view. A qualified idealism is better. Kant had his noumena. Phenomeology is probably the way to go: IT dismisses dualities altogether all metaphysics simply because withever is beyond the pale of palpable experience is not a thing to be talked about. Wittgenstein: That of which nothing can be said, one must be silent. A paraphrase but so what. But just because these guys do not want anything to do with metaphsyics does not mean they do not think there is "something" there. It would be foolish to think otherwise. It's just that there is nothing to say. It is like talking about god, says Rorty: That's why they have words like 'ineffability.'

Well, I've no interest merely in alighning my thoughts with what is a popular view. Usually Popular views are for the middle of the bell curve on any particular subject or lifestyle. The most popular view is probably christianity.