I just don't know what phrase you would use to disagree with the thesis of atheism, while avoiding using the word "exists". — Pfhorrest
...myth was a programme of action. When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play.
Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.
I'm only reiterating what you seem to have said. You avoided answering my questions and cherry-picked my post, so you're not clarifying.Your own objective truth' is an oxymoron — Wayfarer
Why? Beings are made of inanimate matter. The only difference is the complexity with which some thing is affected by the environment and then reacts to the environment.It would incorrect to describe minerals or manufactured artefacts as 'beings' and if you described them as such, you'd be mistaken. They are ‘inanimate’ by definition. — Wayfarer
I can see why. But once you give him enough effort, it's very interesting. — Xtrix
I doubt that very much. This conception is so prevalent in the west we take it as part of human nature, but there's no reason to assume it's universal. — Xtrix
In psychology, particularly in studies of perception. It permeates the philosophy of language (Quine's "Word and Object"), cognitive sciences, etc. This way of talking about the "outside world" of objects and the "inner world" of thoughts, perceptions and emotions is literally everywhere. It'd be hard not to find examples. — Xtrix
But we can't know if they would say something differently. It would be more interesting to know what current philosophers think.If there is at least one long-dead philosopher who would hold with his claims given what is known today, then if he was interesting then, he would seem to be just as interesting now. Why would such long-dead philosopher give a crap about the claims neuroscientists and biologist are beginning to make, when his philosophy is not affected by them? — Mww
Of course you shouldn't be concerned about it normally. Only when discussing the mind-body relationship on a philosophy forum, or when you receive brain damage.Makes no difference to me personally, as a regular ol’ human being, that one part of my brain communicates with another such that I feel good or bad about something, or whatever else happens behind the curtain between my ears. Actually, I couldn’t possible care any less about it. That a certain neural pathway is triggered by a certain activation potential invokes not the slightest interest in me at all, when it occurs to me it’s time to go check the mailbox. — Mww
But we can't know if they would say something differently. — Harry Hindu
you should probably be knowledgable of what people who study the brain are saying when they can make predictions about what you experience when parts of the brain are abnormal. — Harry Hindu
discussing the mind-body relationship on a philosophy forum — Harry Hindu
Interest is determined by your goals. What is interesting depends on the present goal in the mind. The only interest in knowing about the claims of long-dead philosophers is to know how far we've come since.Interest is judged by what is, not by what might not have been. It would be irrational to hold an interest in falsified theoretics of long-dead natural philosophers, but it isn’t irrational to hold an interest in theories metaphysicians create that empirical science cannot conclusively address. Don’t have to live and die by it to be interested in it. — Mww
Is it really indirect? How would you know? This seems to assume dualism.Can that really correlate to the predictions of cognitive neuroscience, if that paradigm has to with physical mechanics, but philosophy has to do only with simple human rational capabilities?
Don’t get me wrong. Science in general is both fascinating and quite useful. But I, a stand-alone thinking subject, am more concerned with what my mind does for my directly, however abstract that may be, than I am with what my brain does for my indirectly. — Mww
Interest is determined by your goals. What is interesting depends on the present goal in the mind. The only interest in knowing about the claims of long-dead philosophers is to know how far we've come since. — Harry Hindu
But I think that the fact that we can't differentiate "beings" from "things" actually conceals a very profound philosophical truth. A chair is not a being, but a cow is a being. When Heidegger talked of 'forgetfulness of being', was he talking about forgetting his car keys? — Wayfarer
Beings are capable of perceiving, whereas inanimate objects (minerals, for instance) are not. Is it 'strange and eccentric' to say that? — Wayfarer
I dont understand why people still resort to pointing to long-dead philosophers claims as if they'd say the same thing knowing what we know today. That's not interesting. What is interesting is that neuroscientists and biologists are beginning to make claims about consciousness where this used to be off limits. — Harry Hindu
If its everywhere, it universal. Objects appear in my visual field as an instinctive act - without any intent of objectifying anything. It isnt cultural. It is biological. — Harry Hindu
What is interesting is that neuroscientists and biologists are beginning to make claims about consciousness where this used to be off limits. — Harry Hindu
Of course a chair is a being — Xtrix
Beings are made of inanimate matter. — Harry Hindu
'Common way of putting it 'where? Living creatures are defined as ‘beings’. It would incorrect to describe minerals or manufactured artefacts as 'beings' and if you described them as such, you'd be mistaken. They are ‘inanimate’ by definition. And I say the difference is more than semantic, that it's ontological, that it denotes a real difference. — Wayfarer
In English, the word ‘being’ applies to living creatures. Chairs and other object are artifacts, objects, tools, etc, but they’re not designated as ‘beings’. As I say, this is simple English albeit with philosophical implications. — Wayfarer
In English, the word ‘being’ applies to living creatures. Chairs and other object are artifacts, objects, tools, etc, but they’re not designated as ‘beings’. As I say, this is simple English albeit with philosophical implications. — Wayfarer
No one in philosophy limits the use of 'beings' to humans. — StreetlightX
The word "being" in English references "existence" as well, — Xtrix
To be fair, the distinction between 'being' and 'existence' is a well founded one that has its roots in Aquinas and alot of medieval Christian philosophy, and still can be found in alot of contemporary philosophy. — StreetlightX
Being and existence in philosophy are related and somewhat overlapping with respect to their meanings. Classical Greek had no independent word of "existence." The word "existence," as distinguished from the word "being," arose in the Middle Ages. Influenced by Islamic philosophy that recognized the contingency of the created world as compared with God the Creator, Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas used the Latin word "existere" ("to exist" or "to appear") as distinct from "esse" ("to be") or "essentia" ("essence").
No one in philosophy limits the use of 'beings' to humans. This is just your idiosyncratic rubbish that no one but you spouts. It is misleading, off-topic, and you have been told this multiple times before. You are knowingly spreading misinformation. Stop. — StreetlightX
...areas of philosophy that are explicitly concerned with understanding the nature of lived experience from a first-person perspective...say that the attempt to account for the nature of experience in third-person terms is radically flawed. — Wayfarer
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.