Am I not the expert of my own experiences? — darthbarracuda

(Y)

Yeah, it's all about human beings... :s This is just anthropomorphism at its best, at least you should recognise that... — Agustino

Exactly; I think you miss the point of Berdyaev's mysticism here. It is all about human beings.

Interesting, yeah, I've talked with one other friend in real life who has had the same experience; and for her, it was the same reaction: "you do the "push" thing too???" So strange.

Interesting. I get it when waking up. Usually I just become aware that I'm (sort of?) awake, but can't move. I've developed this thing where I mentally "push" outwards until I eventually gain control again and can move. It's strange. I've also had the occasional hallucination or feeling of dread, but it's not as common for me. The worst few experiences have left me with a palpable feeling of fear even after waking, as an adult.

Anyone else have sleep paralysis?? :-O

This seems to imply that you think there can only be one occurrence of a given concept. — Banno

Definitely not. My post was sarcastic, perhaps you misread?

I think what is needed is a moral code — Wayfarer

Ah, the moral code! So evanescent, in our experience. The problem with this whole philosophy distraction is the lack of a pragmatic ethics. O philosoph's, what should I do when my neighbor is in need? Pray, tell, what I should do when my neighbor is a murderer? What's the best course of action when my neighbor desires to take her own life? What's the wisest philosophical decision to make when my neighbor deems it his own subjective right to take the life of his own neighbor?

And yet there it is, on the screen. — Banno

Ah yes, the occurrence of this concept on your particular computer screen was the only, original, physical occurrence! How silly of me

If you tell me something is important, is that subjective or objective?

What I'm saying is that something being important seems to suggest an "ought".

There are no facts about what ought to be the case.

The more important question to ask yourself is this: — Terrapin Station

Why is it important if there are no facts about oughts?

No, God is not the world. The world is in God. God is not exhausted by the world. So, in a sense God is both immanent and transcendent, as you would expect. It is not the case that there is no transcendence, but it is the case that there is no (ultimately real) separation. — John

(Y)

Since life has inherent meaning, it is unchangeable. — Nerevar

But if meaning is unchangeable or static, how can freedom exist? Again, to me these dichotomies between subjective and objective meaning are unnecessary. It's perfectly plausible for mankind, endowed with freedom of will, to dynamically create or cause meaning, which we subjectively experience, which at the same time could teleologically evolve into a unified transcendent meaning.

What I was trying to point out is that there seems to be an ethical element to assigning meaning. The meanings we assign to our lives don't exist in a vacuum; they affect other people. This is why there is an ethical constraint in play. And that to me is why ethics and meaning are aspects of the same thing. Which is why I don't think the notion that "there is no inherent meaning and we assign it ourselves" holds up. If meaning is subjective, then ethics are too; yet ethics are what constrain meaning.

"Helping people" might be a good meaning for life. "I am here to help people." You could do worse. — Bitter Crank

So why, presumably, would "killing people" not be a good meaning to give to life? The problem for me with the idea that meaning is only something we assign to life is that I think meaning and ethics are aspects of one metaphysical reality (for lack of a better term), and so they can't be separated. For us to assign life a meaning, the meaning has to pass some sort of general consensus of being a decent choice. There's still an ethical litmus test at play. That's not at all to say that we don't assign our own meanings to our lives. We certainly do. I would even go so far as to agree that at least almost any meaning we ascribe to our lives is just "a theoretical overlay" as you say, but the problem here for me is that we create an unnecessary dichotomy between subjective and objective. It's true that we subjectively project meaning unto our lives, but this in no way excludes the possibility of a transcendent meaning also existing. The reason I think we do this is because, historically, for most religions, a transcendent meaning was assumed, and now the idea that we project meaning has historically grown out of the old understanding. A teenager may wake up one day and realize she doesn't have to follow her parents rules. She very well has the capacity to do as she likes, she can, in a sense, make her own set of rules for herself. The parents may punish her for this, she may disobey in secret, or the parents might just not care, but regardless, she now has this power. And she may, years later, realize that at least some of her parents rules would have been beneficial to follow. In my view, the whole process is necessary: the initial rules that govern the raising of a child, the rebellion from the rules, and the closure of looking back and seeing value in some, not all of the rules she rebelled against. And with a mature view, she can also realize the benefit of her rebellion as well.

They exist in consciousness, which is generated by both the spiritual and physical aspects of reality. Actually, in my view, spirituality, physicality and consciousness are all generative aspects of the same reality. Concepts exist in consciousness and they can act upon the physical aspect of reality; I can come up with an idea for a book, then write the book. The book could end up changing aspects of the world, if the ideas were widely accepted. The ideas themselves aren't aspects of physical reality, but they can change reality.

Why do you begin with the assumption that something must have a spatial location in order to "be"?

If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? — Perdidi Corpus

Because concepts aren't objects in the physical world.

Truth is a concept derived from experience. There's no need to attempt to locate it in physical space. For instance:

for something to exist, it must be somewhere. — Perdidi Corpus

Is a concept derived from experience. This concept doesn't exist in physical space either.

Thanks!

It was clear from my second reply to you. — Agustino

That's why I pointed out the discrepancy in your original reply. :-} Whatever. Anyway, I can tentatively get with the idea of a fundamental motive being grounded in how someone perceives reality, especially since our perception of reality is by definition so steeped in a self-centric way of life, if not overcome through various disciplines. I would even say a fundamental motive is often grounded in how the person views themselves, in relation to the world around them. In other words, our perception of the world around us is fundamentally grounded in a perception of self.

None of that was clear until you elaborated your idea further, but fair enough.

It is the same: — Agustino

No, in the bit about the Emperor, you're saying that his motivations "are almost nonsense to people who aren't the person in question". But you just said that we can know the motivations of others. That's the inconsistency I was pointing out.

This motive is entirely knowable to the more self-conscious amongst us, at least our own is. It's our own individual purpose for being here, bestowed upon us by the Eternal. Its source is unknowable and unfathomable. — Agustino

These two ideas, that 1) our own motive is knowable to us, while 2) it's source is not knowable, seem arbitrary to me.

So what exactly is the point you're driving at? You're slowly revising your position. You originally said:

Someone else could be motivated to become Emperor of China because he feels the destiny of his nation sits on his shoulders - feels he is asked to do something for it. And so on - these are very particular reasons, that are almost nonsense to people who aren't the person in question. — Agustino

Which isn't the same as saying

I'm saying that its source is unknowable — Agustino

Some motive has to be primary and foundational to one's character. — Agustino

So you're saying the foundational motive is unknowable? If so, I mostly agree with that, but it doesn't mean we can't learn about the other motives layered on top, and get a sense for someone's general motivations, even if it's not a perfect, exhaustive knowledge.

Knowing what his motives are is different than understanding why they are his motives. It's part of his freedom, having chosen those motives. — Agustino

I definitely disagree here; understanding why his motives are what they are would just be discovering the further motives underneath those motives. We don't choose our motives, as you say. Steve Jobs chose his career path, but he did so because of underlying motives; he didn't choose those motives. If I had been one of his closest friends or family members, I could probably elaborate further on what some of his motivations probably were.

Do you disagree with what else I've said here about motives? You don't really seem to be responding to my thoughts, just to what I say about your thoughts.

I do not know how, for example, the guy wanting to become Chinese Emperor, how he started to perceive it as his duty to become the leader of the country, and start feeling it is his responsibility to do so. — Agustino

Can't you just ask the guy? >:O

Really though, I partially agree, at least in that the motives of another are not always knowable or clear, but I think we can certainly apprehend some amount of another's motives. Actions also reveal motives, for instance. We can make decently accurate assessments, given enough time. We can make an assessment accurate enough, for instance, to make a judgement and then take an action. The results of our action could reveal that our judgement of the other's motives was accurate.

Why not?

These things only make sense to them and for them. — Agustino

But surely by learning about their reasons, you can make sense of it for yourself? The reasons you just laid out sound perfectly reasonable, why do they not make sense to you? I can put myself in their shoes and imagine why they feel that way. I can imagine myself feeling similarly if I was them.

And so on — Agustino

Yes, and so on. These motives are a chain, a series. Where exactly is the genesis? How many of the motives are conscious, and how many unconscious? Motives and decisions are almost like the dark matter of society. Motives, conscious and unconscious are what cause society to propagate. It seems dismissive to me to simply say that others motives don't make sense to anyone but the person who holds them, simply because they are different from yours. Empathy is built on the ability to understand someone else's motives, to make sense of them.

The problem of goals. Why are you doing this? What, exactly, do you want, and what are your motives? — Pneumenon

Exactly, this is why I'm critical of physicalism, etc., because there's still some sort of motive behind it; it's essentially a religious belief. The call to lay all bias at the foot of Lord Science is essentially a religious call. It has some sort of undefined telos behind it.

To me, this illustrates how pervasive a teleological way of thinking is in society. And more importantly, how can anyone truly know all of the motives behind their own thinking in the first place? To fully be aware of ones own motives requires deep honesty with oneself. The discipline to "draw out the deep waters" itself requires a motive for why to even bother in the first place. Someone's "ultimate goal" is to live in Hawaii or be the Emperor of China, as Augustino says, but what's the motive behind the goal? Motives are deeply layered in us. I like how Tillich defines God as "ultimate concern".

My most recent record:

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/album/lunar-tide

I love the gymnopedies.

A yes, that's the same story I heard.

Very true, and something we all do, but only to a point. No need to hold the various members of this forum, or another forum, or a university as the only arbiters of truth, or scrutiny, as you say. It's a good breeding-ground. :)

I make dangerously bold statements knowing that I'll really look stupid if I get the basic facts wrong. — apokrisis

I do the same thing, although clearly from the other side of the "isle".

I need to learn! :P

Hey, you go on a philosophy forum and not just your arguments, but your premises too, get picked apart. Get used to it. — apokrisis

Says the guy who's never put his neck out and started a discussion here. >:O

A true fact .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otoacoustic_emission — apokrisis

Interesting, I'm pretty sure I have that.

Could be a mild case of it, I'm an audio engineer, but I was more referring to anechoic chambers where supposedly you can hear the sound of your nervous system because it's so quiet :-O may very well just be bullshit! I think I heard that in a music course in college...which doesn't mean it's not bullshit...