(It could make a nice reading group too, especially in the way it might attract both analytics and continentals) — jamalrob

That sounds like a good idea. The bugger is organising it and then sticking to it.

That still sounds foolish to me. Judging by his books it sounds more like the guy doesn't have a grasp on the subjects he talks about. Even his book is rife with logical fallacies.

I mentioned in last month’s post here that our familiar term “world” is a rounded-off version of the Old English weorold, “man-old,” the time or age of human beings. That bit of etymology conceals more than one important insight. As I noted last month, it reminds us that this thing we call “the world” isn’t something wholly outside ourselves, something we experience in a detached and objective way. It’s something we create moment by moment in our minds, by piecing together the jumble of unconnected glimpses our senses give us — John Michael Greer

I will reiterate my last point about if they are arguing the world is not real then who are they talking to or trying to convince.

The ultimate reality is indistinguishable from the self. The self being all, corroborates that there is no world separate from the self. Jan Westerhoff uses the term "irrealism" to describe a world inseparable from the self.

It's important to know that we selves come self-sufficient and self-contained, not independent but self-directing. There are no relationships with other people, since there is only you.

AS for the discussion of "real" I say what science says about it speaks far more than anything philosophy brings to the table. I think when discussing reality or the world philosophy is useless as my lived experience remains unchanged regardless of the argument for the world or lack of it. — Darkneos

good ol’ religion of science!

what made you land here then?

And I will reiterate my reply that questioning the accepted consensus is the fundamental task of philosophy (and even science, for that matter). A lot of what we think that we know turns out to be resting on very shaky foundations.

Which again still doesn't address my point. You keep saying that questioning stuff is what philosophy does. Yet what is the point of doing that when things ultimately rest on axioms? Stop dodging the question? Every time someone says questioning is important I look at a duck and am reminded it's not.

IF everything is ultimately based on a set of axioms that we cannot prove and have to take it on faith then what exactly is the point of performing philosophy? — Darkneos

If you feel there are things you "have to take on faith", then those are not axioms. Axioms are things you're already sure of.

How can we call anything a pursuit of truth?

With that inborn human optimism.

Philosophizing can be said to be the act of taking a few axioms, a few things that one is sure of, and then think about what implications follow or could follow from them. This way, one can discover new axioms, ie. those that one previously was not aware of.

Life seems real, WHILE we are living it. My childhood seemed real, when I was a child and my dreams seem real while I’m dreaming them. However, since everything in the universe is impermanent and constantly changing, it may be that the only thing that is real, is change itself?

That still sounds foolish to me. Judging by his books it sounds more like the guy doesn't have a grasp on the subjects he talks about. Even his book is rife with logical fallacies. — Darkneos

If this is your own assessment rather than that of the philosophically illiterate one star Amazon review that you quoted, then tell us in what way it's foolish, why you think Gabriel doesn't have a grasp of the subjects he talks about (whatever that means), and point out his logical fallacies.

When Gabriel decided on his provocative title, he likely wanted to stimulate curiosity. It obviously hasn't worked in your case. You didn't like it and came here to attack what you assume it is he is saying. As I pointed out, you made a mistake. Own up to it.

Philosophizing can be said to be the act of taking a few axioms, a few things that one is sure of, and then think about what implications follow or could follow from them. This way, one can discover new axioms, ie. those that one previously was not aware of. — baker

:up: I like that. Like ‘driving pitons into the cliff-face of possibility’.

Or the more likely reason is you are defending a nutter, which seems popular in philosophy.

Philosophizing can be said to be the act of taking a few axioms, a few things that one is sure of, and then think about what implications follow or could follow from them. This way, one can discover new axioms, ie. those that one previously was not aware of. — baker

This sort of sounds like the death of philosophy to me. I mean if philosophy is the love of wisdom and the pursuit of truth but everything rests on unproveable axioms then what is the point of philosophizing?

Or the more likely reason is you are defending a nutter, which seems popular in philosophy. — Darkneos

If only you had offered a criticism for me to defend him against.

[Moving this garbage thread to the lounge]

There's no need, the guy is saying the world is not real or does not exist, that's already grounds for the looney bin.

*sigh*