• Gregory
    The weirdest philosphical thought I ever had was whether the brains might actually be located in the feet. I thought "how do we know the organs don't rearrange themselves into what science thinks in the real arrangement after it is cut open? You can't see it from the inside!". Philosophy has always had weird ideas. In Hinduism, God sometimes is seen as sensuous, obviously a strange idea to many Westerns.

    Modern philosophy in general, although founded on good arguments, is very esoteric. The idea that consciousness can perceive material objects has haunted many thinkers. Descartes's situation wasn't settled just because a soul was latter rejected in philosophy. Are our consciosnesses infinite or finite? Descartes's had the objection that we start from the finite and can never reach the infinite through addition of qualities. This however has never been a problem for Hindu yogis, who find themselves dissolved into the infinite. To balance this with "being in the world" is exotic.

    Maybe we can understand objects because we are so far above them?
  • Pantagruel
    We have a much wider milieu now in which our awareness/understanding of reality can unfold. Descartes was a genius of immense proportions, but he lived in a universe barely beginning to be comprehended in a Newtonian-mechanical sense. Up until 1920 the best minds in the world thought our own galaxy was the extent of the universe. Consciousness is unfolding at an unprecedented rated.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    Are our consciosnesses infinite or finite?Gregory

    Why not both? There is no reason to suspect that existence is not constitutionally paradoxical, and I sometimes entertain the idea that wherever the infinite and finite intersect, there you will find a human being immersed in the existence medium.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    Maybe we can understand objects because we are so far above them?Gregory

    Objective knowledge amounts to no more than an approximation of the truth since it is always partially created and partially learned. For every object that is known, the human understanding interposes a veil or lense over existence, so that no matter how infinitismal, there remains a human component contaminating all understanding. I might venture to say that in learning (learning as used in the present sense), one is in a direct relation to the object, whereas in creating (creating as used in the present sense) one stands apart from the object, an indirect relation, and may put oneself above it as it were.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    We have a much wider milieu now in which our awareness/understanding of reality can unfold.Pantagruel

    Very true

    Consciousness is unfolding at an unprecedented rated.Pantagruel

    And yet people are stupider than ever. Go figure.
  • Gregory
    I sometimes entertain the idea that wherever the infinite and finite intersect, there you will find a human being immersed in the existence medium.Merkwurdichliebe

    I like that. We seem to be born into the middle of a story and wonder "who did I get in the middle without understanding the beginning and end?". A phenomenologist would say "where else is there to be!"
  • Gregory
    Tapas in Hindu religion is thought of as a physical manifestation of Brahma/Atman within the body (especially the stomach). It is called "sexual warm" or "the warm of birth" sometimes. This is a radically different idea than western theism. For many Indians, the universe generates itself through a auto-sexual birthing act.

    Descartes idea of God was different: you could never become God because the chasm between the finite and the perfectly infinite can never be bridged. Now Descartes was not a theologian. For believing Christians, they follow St Peter in the Bible in saying we "partake of divine nature" in heaven. The Church Fathers called it deification. There is still a numerical difference between creator and creature though, and the relation of cause and effect remains.

    However Hindus (whom I have been reading about the past couple days) say what Hegel (and Protagoras) said: our souls are all reality. Hegel got his notion of soul from Aristotle, but exploded it into the infinite through his own reasoning and comes up close to Hinduism on this.

    Descartes (back to him) thought we don't get a vague idea of God from thinking, but we have naturally a very specific idea, "clear and distinct", within our souls about this infinite Being. Maybe material objects
    didn't exist, he said, but this being that has all greatness must exist because this idea within him of God can't stand alone. It can only come from God and it can only point, in it's internal nature, to God. This idea of his that this idea of perfect being cannot be an idea that has nothing objective to correspond to is very modern. (This is one of the reasons he is the first modern philosopher) Most people don't consider this argument, and turn to his ontological argument instead (which was just him atomizing the former argument). The idea is a mere contingent substance isolated by itself.

    There is something about ideas that must ultimately make us realize they correspond to a reality outside.
  • Gregory
    I want to add, this alluring, spontaneous self-generation of all (divinity) that Hinduism speaks of is similar to Descartes position (held against the scholastics in Descartes's "Replies to Objections") that God creates himself. I have over the years seen more and more how Descartes started modern philosophy and rationalism, but did so in such a subtle way. Nevertheless we get our information about the philosophy from the world. Is this a mistake? Must a cause always precede the effect at least in some way? Lots of questions. The quantum eraser experiments comes to mind.
  • Gregory

    Modern theory of time itself says there is no difference between eternity and time, the spiritual and the material as well. Very much like Yoruba religions
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.