As personal choice I have no complaint. I'm objecting only to any effort to turn a personal choice in to a universal maxim. — Jake

And you're not trying to turn your worldview into a universal maxim? You certainly sound like you're making universal claims about reality and human nature and the role of logic.

My universal maxim reflects the facts better than yours. Again, I am not against logic. I'm only against efforts to turn logic in to some kind of religion.

We should happily use logic where it has been proven useful, and proceed with caution where no such proof is available. This is logic. Pretty good logic. Better logic than trying to make logic in to a god.

My universal maxim reflects the facts better than yours. — Jake

:rofl: :lol: :snicker:

We should happily use logic where it has been proven useful, and proceed with caution where no such proof is available. — Jake

Yup, I agree. Except, there is no realm where not using logic is useful.

Every single one of the millions of species which have existed on Earth for millions of years have been of limited ability. — Jake

Limited ability to understand things, though? How do we know what, if anything, other species are understanding?

Yup, I agree. Except, there is no realm where not using logic is useful. — NKBJ

Or more precisely, you personally don't know of any realm where not using logic is useful, and you're trying to inflate your personal limitations in to a universal maxim describing all human experience. That is, you're trying to turn logic in to a "one true way" religion.

So, ok, go ahead and do that.

Sorry, but your assertions seem to amount to little more than faith. You keep waving at some unknown unknowable realm that can't be seen or heard or reasoned that I'm just supposed to believe in. I'm just supposed to blindly trust some illogical, insane, mystical force that could serve as a way to explore these fantastical worlds that somehow elude us otherwise.

That's the real "religious dogma" here.

For me, the funny part is that you're so quick and happy to accept my worldview as "just an opinion" but you're so insistent on having some grand, sage-like insight into the world, while at the same time contending it to be incomprehensible.

But all y'all postmodernists are alike.

Sorry, but your assertions seem to amount to little more than faith. — NKBJ

And this assertion sounds like little more than atheist dogma chanting. Sorry, have no personal beef with you, just reporting what I hear.

You keep waving at some unknown unknowable realm that can't be seen or heard or reasoned that I'm just supposed to believe in. — NKBJ

First, I'm not asking you to believe in anything. In case you haven't already read this elsewhere, I'm not a theist.

I do apologize for not making my posts more tangible to you. Have you ever meditated? If not, useful experience outside of thought is available to be explored at any time you might wish to do so. There's no need to believe anything. Try it if you want, come to your own relationship with it. Maybe it's not for you personally, I have no idea.

I'm only saying, your notion that logic is the only process which can deliver value is simply incorrect. That said, I have no objection if you wish to cling to an incorrect view for awhile longer. Rome was not built in a day etc.

For me, the funny part is that you're so quick and happy to accept my worldview as "just an opinion" but you're so insistent on having some grand, sage-like insight into the world, while at the same time contending it to be incomprehensible. — NKBJ

I'm 67 and have been considering such topics for at least 50 years. If you are of a quite different age that may explain why we aren't connecting. If true, we can continue trying if it interests you, or just let it go, agreeable either way.

Now you just went from illogical to beyond ridiculous.

Yes, it's religious dogma if I have to do some voodoo carp like meditation to ascertain some illogical, mystical truths/untruths/halftruths/beyond truths. You're right, it's not for me. I really do think it's baloney and a total waste of the precious hours we have on this planet.

Your age-difference justification is just... Reaching? Ageist? Totally bonkers? A sad attempt to save face? There are 10 year old monks who meditate and believe the same dogma you do, and 90 year old philosophers who on their deathbeds still hold my view. My age is immaterial to the discussion, as is yours. But, if you put a little more effort into logic and coherence, you would know that.

Yes, it's religious dogma if I have to do some voodoo carp like meditation to ascertain some illogical, mystical truths/untruths/halftruths/beyond truths. — NKBJ

That's not how meditation actually works, though it's surely understandable that you might think that. Lots of people meditate and then present some explanation, which is of course reasonable questioned just as you would like to do.

Explanations are not meditation. Explanations are explanations, thoughts, the opposite of meditation.

At no point have I suggested you should meditate so that you will then believe XYZ. I haven't even suggested that you should meditate. I'm only pointing out that thought/reason/logic is not the only process which can deliver value.

Your age-difference justification is just... Reaching? — NKBJ

Ok, so let me ask you this young man. Do you plan learning anything as you proceed through life? Or is it your expectation that your level of insight and understanding will always remain the same?

Do you perhaps see how effortlessly I am slamming your snotty comments back down your throat? That's not because I'm smarter than you, which is probably not true. It's only because I've been playing this game since before you were born, maybe since before your parents were born.

Perhaps we can talk again some time when you've had a chance to calm down and let go of some of this teenager atheist ideologue snottiness. Sadly, becoming 67 does not automatically liberate one from impatience with noisy children. :smile:

Ok, so let me ask you this young man. Do you plan learning anything as you proceed through life? Or is it your expectation that your level of insight and understanding will always remain the same?

Do you perhaps see how effortlessly I am slamming your snotty comments back down your throat? That's not because I'm smarter than you, which is probably not true. It's only because I've been playing this game since before you were born, maybe since before your parents were born.

Perhaps we can talk again some time when you've had a chance to calm down and let go of some of this teenager atheist ideologue snottiness. Sadly, becoming 67 does not automatically liberate one from impatience with noisy children. :smile: — Jake

I actually don't think it's my supposed "snottiness" that's getting to you. I think you just have nothing to counter and you're irritated that you can't make a good, strong case for your mysticism. You're lashing out at me with the only thing you think (because, note, you have no idea how old I actually am) you have on me.

Well, I'm not much interested in arguing with someone who can get to be 67 years old and still be so childish. Grow up.

My age is immaterial to the discussion, as is yours. — NKBJ

In other words, you have no expectation of learning anything as you proceed through life, which perhaps raises the question of why you would bother to do philosophy.

In other words, you have no expectation of learning anything as you proceed through life — Jake

Your inability to use logic is showing here.

I actually don't think it's my supposed "snottiness" that's getting to you. — NKBJ

I'm not taking offense, I'm just very bored by such poses because they are so VERY common on philosophy forums. And I have the personal weakness of often getting grouchy when I'm bored, so I'm putting some effort in to trying to overcome that. I'll likely run out of such effort before much longer.

I think you just have nothing to counter and you're irritated that you can't make a good, strong case for your mysticism — NKBJ

I'm irritated at myself (not at you) for yet again getting sucked in to trying to talk reason with atheist Jehovah's Witnesses who are probably just barely old enough to vote. You know, I'm looking my old self who should surely know better by now in the mirror and asking, "Dude, why don't I get a life you moron???" Sorry to report, aging doesn't solve everything.

Let's leave it here and preserve the opportunity to chat again sometime.

Your inability to use logic is showing here. — NKBJ

If you don't expect that you, or anyone, will learn as they proceed through life then your claim that age is irrelevant is reasonable.

If you do expect to learn as you proceed through life, then your claim that age is irrelevant is nonsense.

I'm irritated at myself (not at you) for yet again getting sucked in to trying to talk reason with atheist Jehovah's Witnesses who are probably just barely old enough to vote. You know, I'm looking my old self who should surely know better by now in the mirror and asking, "Dude, why don't I get a life you moron???" Sorry to report, aging doesn't solve everything. — Jake

I just think it's too funny that you think you can deduce my age from the fact that I simply do not agree with you. I mean, that's just the epitome of religious dogma right there.

If you don't expect that you, or anyone, will learn as they proceed through life then your claim that age is irrelevant is reasonable.

If you do expect to learn as you proceed through life, then your claim that age is irrelevant is nonsense. — Jake

I didn't say I wouldn't learn. I AM saying that just because I will learn (and so will you, because, let's face it, 67 is the new 50, if you care enough to take care of your body and mind), it does not follow that I will ever agree with you. Proof of that are all the octogenarians who precisely do not believe what you do, and never have, and never will.

Additionally, age is immaterial, because either an argument is good or bad in and of itself. Claiming that my or your personal circumstances somehow affect the truth of an argument is just a blatant ad hominem.

I just think it's too funny that you think you can deduce my age from the fact that I simply do not agree with you. I mean, that's just the epitome of religious dogma right there. — NKBJ

If you're not a twenty something, that's even sadder. See? My impatience wearing thin. Food fight coming. Is that what you seek? How about this, I would be willing to add you to my ignore list if that will help liberate you from my nonsense. You could add me to yours as well if you wish. Problem solved. An option to consider...

Additionally, age is immaterial, because either an argument is good or bad in and of itself. — NKBJ

But the ability to understand an argument is not a universally shared condition.

You don't even know what my argument might be. You haven't the slightest idea. You're just making up stuff to yell about, rejecting for the experience of rejection, a process which you call "logic".

Ok, no more food fight. You win ok. If you keep coming at me I'll solve that with the new ignore feature. Your call.

Ok, no more food fight. You win ok. If you keep coming at me I'll solve that with the new ignore feature. Your call. — Jake

Go ahead and ignore me then if you can't keep your cool. To quote some actual young'uns: "you started it!"

You may be stuck in a 67 year old body, but you sure sound about 13 or 15 at heart. :joke:

I realize Nietzsche is your personal pet philosopher. — NKBJ

Actually, Heidegger and Derrida are my personal pet philosophers. Nietzsche is of only secondary interest to me.
.

there's not much you could say to convince me that he's much good at all. — NKBJ

In defending Nietzsche here, what I really want to do is defend a direction that both cognitive science and philosophy of mind seem to be going in, consisting of the abandonment of representationalist models of mental functioning and the embrace of enactive approaches.
I'm more interested in the efficacy of theories of autism, schizophrenia, development of empathy and affectivity than i am in Nietzsche per se. But it's hard to ignore him when notable neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio incorporate his ideas into their work. But perhaps there's not much I could say to convince you that Damasio's award winning research is much good at all.

Just out of curiousity, if a thinker who you greatly admired turned out to be a big fan of Nietzsche, would that al all change your opinion of Nietzsche? My hunch is there is no one on your list of admired philosophers(maybe you could name some) who, as far as you know, endorse Nietzsche's ideas. So it's not just Nietzsche, but a whole community influenced by him that you don't think are "that much good at all."

efficacy of theories of autism, schizophrenia, development of empathy and affectivity — Joshs

That does actually sound interesting.

Antonio Damasio incorporate his ideas into their work. But perhaps there's not much I could say to convince you that Damsio's award winning research is much good at all. — Joshs

I'm not aware of his work, and so cannot comment on how he employs Nietzche. I will say that if it's similar to how most non-philosophers tend to use these types of theories, I think I would spot not just a few errors in his writing. It doesn't look like any of his awards are actually in philosophy.

If I have to read a whole host of secondary literature to understand Nietzsche, that's just proof that he's no good at all. (It's also epistemologically suspect, in that if you need to read Heidegger to understand Nietzche, — NKBJ

I never recommend reading secondary literature before attempting the original work of an author first. But in situations where I have difficulty in interpreting someone's ideas(whether because of challenging style, lack of familiarity with the historical -cultural context of their writing, or translation issues), it is often helpful to begin with a bit of background orientation. I wouldn't recommend Heidegger's or Deleuze's account of Nietzsche to you, but I would suggest Walter Kaufmann. He doesn't write from a postmodern vantage, so avoids the associated jargon. When I find myself having to make use of secondary literature in order to understand a philosopher's work, sometimes it can mean that writer's ideas are 'no good', but it usually means(for instance in the case of Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant), that their approach is highly complex and subtle, and their writing style idosyncratic.

When I find myself having to make use of secondary literature in order to understand a philosopher's work, sometimes it can mean that writer's ideas are 'no good', but it usually means(for instance in the case of Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant), that their approach is highly complex and subtle, and their writing style idosyncratic. — Joshs

I think the odds are the other way around, actually. It's more likely that an opaque piece is garbage than that it is useful.

The difference between Kant and Nietzsche is that Kant is dense and complex, but for the most part sensible/logical (except the noumena business, which is just religiosity slipping in), while Nietzsche remains contradictory even after explication.

What makes it a "rabbit hole", please explain that term for me. I have read and understand Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I don't see how it directly applies here. Nietzsche is one of the most influential voices in human history.

What makes it a "rabbit hole", please explain that term for me. — whollyrolling

Cause you follow it into a magical land where everything is confused and unreal.

Nietzsche is one of the most influential voices in human history. — whollyrolling

Definitely overstating the case here. He is AN influential voice, but not one of the MOST. Besides which, level of influence does not necessarily equal thoughtfulness, coherence, depth, or truth. The Bible is the most influential text of the western hemisphere, maybe the world, and that's just gobbledygook.

I'm not saying it affects the validity of his claims or conceals the annoyance of his contradictions. All I'm saying is that, much like the Bible, it's at least an interesting read. And the problem with putting something down due to contradiction is that 100% of existence is saturated with contradiction. In his case especially, he's trying to convey something that runs contrary to everything we know and feel, and for this reason many people scoff or express contempt even at the sound of his name without ever having read a word. Also, despite the tone of his work and the contradiction, it is very eloquently written for the most part.

People read Shakespeare and the Bible, ancient mythology in general and overtly false documentation of history, it seems strange to avoid something just on principle or a hunch. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but it seems to be common practice.

To clarify what I mean by false history, for one example Caligula, who's documented as a horrible wretch of a human being and historians take this at face value while fully aware that every written record about the emperor was composed by powerful men who had seething hatred and contempt for him. Or Jesus, another example, whose life was documented by religious fanatics who were willing to die, and perhaps to kill--as was documented concerning the Garden of Gethsemane--on behalf of the mention of his name.

Anyway, let me stop trying to convince anyone to read things.

Anyway, let me stop trying to convince anyone to read things. — whollyrolling

You're forgetting one part: I have read it. And based on that, I scoff.

If you've read all of his work, then there's certainly no reason to subject yourself to it again.

100% of existence is saturated with contradiction. — whollyrolling

What's an example of that?