• 3017amen
    3.1k
    I was inspired by some recent discussions on the forum regarding independent existence and wanted to see what other philosophy might be germane. Starting with using basic reason, physicist Paul Davies writes (from The Mind of God/The Mystery at the End of the Universe):

    It may seem as if the only alternatives are an infinite tower of turtles or the existence of an ultimate super turtle, the explanation for which lies within itself [mathematics/logical necessity/Ontological argument]. …Wheeler rejects completely the notion of eternal laws: The laws of physics cannot have existed from everlasting to everlasting. They must have come into being at the big bang. So, rather than appeal to timeless transcendent laws to bring the universe into being, Wheeler prefers …[PAP].

    …. arrangements are founded on the assumption of human rationality: that it is legitimate to seek “explainations” for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is explained. Yet it has to be admitted that our concept of rational explanation probably derives from our observations of the world and our evolutionary inheritance. Is it clear that this provides adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions? Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought.


    With that, I was thinking about what transcends human thought, and how the notion of transcendence itself (Kant/Schop transcendental idealism) implies some ‘sense’ (pardon the pun) or conception of independent existence, much like how some physicist’s think about the laws of physics & nature (unchanging mathematical truths) existing independent of the human mind (?). I think Platonism also applies here... .

    And also, much like the analogy of temporal time presumably starting at the big bang, and eternal time existing in eternity where at the speed of light time ceases to exist. And in theory a novel non-material consciousness has entered eternity as time is now infinite. (The past, present and future are all one at the speed of light.) Then, I thought about Schop’s the World as Will philosophy and how our conscious will (to live) itself, cannot be explained physically (versus Darwinian instinct).

    Since there are other theories and philosophy that might be able to offer explanations for similar phenomena or questions that even hint to metaphysics and the nature of reality, I analogized to the foregoing comments about the limits of human reason, and wondered what the significance or implications of Glossolalia (speak-in-tongues) might be (even though it comes across as nonsense).

    Is that a phenomenon, where if nothing else, does exist, and further suggests another logically possible world with its own set of logic and language? Is that a phenomenal manifestation of what Kant referred to as a noumenal world-concept or view? What kind of logic accounts for something outside of time to cause time itself (temporal v. eternal)? How does the concepts of logical necessity (mathematical truths/logic) and logically possible worlds fit into a proposed philosophy of Glossolalia?

    Metaphorically, maybe Glossolalia is a kind of euphemism or cosmological language for some notion of turtle-talk :razz: I already see some paradox relative to human thinking and the whole idea of logically possible worlds and Multiverse theories, but would like to get some other free-form thoughts on the matter. I suppose some things in life are no less absurd than paradox itself but am not sure. .. .
  • Deleted User
    0
    I think that you are right in your premises, if I understood correctly: in other words, we need to keep under permanent criticism our categories, thoughts, ideas. The problem is that our criticism in turn comes from our mind. So, even though we can make the biggest effort to expose our most essential categories and ideas to the most radical criticism, nonetheless we remain inside our brain. We can’t use our criticism abilitiy as an instrument to gain perspectives free from our mentality: after any kind of criticism, we are still inside our brain, our mentality. So, I think the best thing to do is not to make efforts to gain freedom from the categories of our mind: we just can’t. I think the best thing to do is to admit our limits and just try to make the best use of our brain. For example, an artist is well aware of the limits of his instruments, he accepts these limits and tries to get the best possible things. This makes possible for him to produce art masterpieces. I think that frequently philosophy falls in the opposite mistake: philosophers are strongly tempted to believe that their philosophy is a powerful instrument to really master truth, knowledge of reality, and the result is that they just don’t realize how ridiculous their philosophies are. So, about glossolalia, I think we need to keep in mind that any comprehension of it cannot escape being strongly conditioned by our mentalities.
  • Protagoras
    331
    Poetry and supra logical speech has always been the best expression of truth.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Glossolalia has more to do with epilepsy than philosophy.
  • Janus
    15.4k
    If something is "beyond the limits of reason" then how can you expect to draw reasonable conclusions about it?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Poetry and supra logical speech has always been the best expression of truth.Protagoras

    That can't be right. Since truth ranges only over propositions, poetry can only be the best expression.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno

    Read the post again.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    did that. Now what?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno

    You should see your error of comprehension.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    No you’re gonna have to explain it to me
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno
    Your post seems to be agreeing and disagreeing with me.

    You misunderstood the implication of my post.

    I didn't say truth cannot be expressed by normal speech.

    So I don't see what your post really refers to?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    So I don't see what your post really refers to?Protagoras

    Well, perhaps we might start by you explaining "supra logical speech"...? If logic is about tracking the path of truth through language, and yet supra-logical speech is better at expressing truth, w ehad best find out what it is.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno
    So what was your original objection before we proceed?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    ...since truth ranges only over propositions, poetry can only be the best expression.Banno

    Poetry doesn't rest on propositions. Truth ranges over propositions. Whatever poetry expresses, it's perhaps not propositional truth, since that would better be stated in propositions. Similarly, whatever supra-logical speech is, does it range over propositions or not?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno

    You may regard the poetry I am talking about as axiomatic or desire-expressive. Ditto supra-logical speech.

    To think that truth is only propositional is the entire blunder of academic philosophy and science.

    Intuitive,non discursive truth is expressed.

    Beyond Wittgensteins silence,to expressing the contents of what he dared not speak.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Sure; my point is that what is expressed is not a proposition. If it is a truth, it's in the wider, older sense of being solid, firm or steadfast. Shown, not stated.

    SO, what is "supra-logical speech"?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno
    Shown and stated. That's the rub and crux.

    Supra logical speech is that which is intuitively true and expressed.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    intuitively trueProtagoras

    SO what's that?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno

    Your very fond of using pain as an example.

    You intuitively know your tooth is in pain.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    You intuitively know your tooth is in pain.Protagoras

    Not so much. Having a toothache is not what I would call an intuition.

    For example, an intuition might be mistaken; but not a toothache.

    And if knowledge must be justified, then what is it that justifies my knowing I have a toothache...?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno
    That's just the way you like to parse things.

    Who says knowledge must be always justified. My pain is certain.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Who says knowledge must be always justified. My pain is certain.Protagoras

    So do you know that you are in pain in the same sort of way you know Paris is in France?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno
    Both are truths to me.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Sure. Do you know them both?
  • Banno
    23.1k


    So by "Known" you mean "true to me"?

    Most folk might rather say that the things they think are true are their beliefs, and admit that at least some of the things they think are true might not be.

    Wouldn't it be better to say that there are things you believe to be true, but that sometimes you believe things that are not true?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    NoProtagoras

    How to end a conversation.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno

    Not really a conversation.

    Your attempt at a monologue really.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    yep. My own Glossolalia.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Banno
    Yep. Your own bullshit.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.