Yes Jack just to be clear I take no exception and am in agreement with you. I've seen many of folk as it were who are very well educated but because of their ego it clouds their abilities in other intrinsic ways. Similarly in that same way within the human condition exists certain intrinsic fears.

In the postmodern spirit, it is certainly worth exploring these fears vis a vis the mysteries surrounding the thesis in your OP. In other words there are those who fear the unknown and/or even fear the exploration of same.

Perhaps that is where subjectivism and objectivism meet...

I don't think the systems of the world are anywhere near perfect at all. In your thread about medical expertise, I simply was suggesting that England would be in a mess if we lost the NHS and the welfare state.

Actually, I frequently feel that the world is collapsing beneath my feet in many ways. I just don't want to be floating in space completely But I am prepared to live with a certain amount of mystery, existential and metaphysically. I believe in taking risks in exploring all kinds of ideas, and in self examination.

I see the mysteries of philosophy as being part of my interest and quest, and do believe that exploration of fear is part of this too. It takes time and energy, but I think that it is worth the effort, reading and thinking about these ideas widely. I have been doing this since adolescence but more so in lockdown, and finding this site has definitely helped, because I used to read my books by myself, and, now, I am able to interact with others about the ideas.

However, unfortunately some people can be just as dogmatic in philosophical argument as the ones who are dogmatic in fundamentalist religion. — Jack Cummins

Simple tribalism. It happens in every pursuit, from sport to politics, philosophy to classical music (don't start me on Wagnerians). Human nature doesn't change with the subject of interest. I generally hold that that the more assertive the person is about their argument, the less certain they are in the beliefs.

It sometimes seems that people in our time act as if we are fortunate to be able to understand so fully, but it is hard to know what knowledge is yet to be uncovered. — Jack Cummins

Have you ever thought that the thirst for knowledge, the chasing of knowledge is just another form of sublimated materialism? A form of obsessive collecting disguised as a virtue - ideas in the place of knick-knacks. I suspect our conceptual trinkets are like status symbols and not much use to us in the end. They are no more likely to bring happiness than a Porsche or Rolex. Human life is as complicated or as simple as you want to make it. There aren't all that many questions we must answer - pride drives us to ask more all the time. Shoving ideas into our minds, like a binge eater raiding a fridge, may simply be just another distraction.

If free will is the central problem of philosophy... — Jack Cummins

Oh, it's not central to philosophy.

I do collect books, but I do wish to see my reading and thinking being more than just a 'materialistic thirst for knowledge.' I don't think that philosophy counts as that much of a status symbol and most people I know are completely dismissive of my interest, and probably value sport and cars as being far more important. Generally, I have always been inclined towards philosophy and the mysterious. I used to be drawn to these areas in the library when I was at school, more than to the subjects which I was supposed to be studying. I don't know the limits of areas for questioning. I do find that the more time I spend on this forum seems to make me see new angles and subtle variations on the basic ones which I had originally.

I think that free will is a recurrent theme in philosophy, but probably in other related disciplines. In psychology, there is the nature vs nurture debate,which is interrelated, so it is central to philosophy and beyond.

I don't think that philosophy counts as that much of a status symbol and most people I know are completely dismissive of my interest — Jack Cummins

The most powerful status symbols are the ones others don't understand. It makes our virtue even more pronounced. Never underestimate the power of the recondite.

I don't think the systems of the world are anywhere near perfect at all. In your thread about medical expertise, I simply was suggesting that England would be in a mess if we lost the NHS and the welfare state. — Jack Cummins

The English NHS is already a mess. Maybe you would be a lot better off.

. No ... because all of them are futile ... they're imaginations from your prejucides, and dirty imagination, friend ...
. The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic. Seeing is not thinking.

. The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible. If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it.

. Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality. Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth.

. All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it?

. A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it. Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation.

. Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The word ‘philo’ means love; ‘sophy’ means wisdom, knowledge – love for knowledge. In philosia, ‘philo’ means the same love, and ‘sia’ means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being – not for wisdom, but for experiencing.”

. No ... because all of them are futile ... they're imaginations from your prejucides, and dirty imagination, friend ...
. The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic. Seeing is not thinking.

. The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible. If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it.

. Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality. Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth.

. All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it?

. A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it. Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation.

. Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The word ‘philo’ means love; ‘sophy’ means wisdom, knowledge – love for knowledge. In philosia, ‘philo’ means the same love, and ‘sia’ means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being – not for wisdom, but for experiencing.”

In some respects, case by case reasoning is good, especially if you're obtaining the mean to an array of problems. However, being wise of our intelligence begets that we understand all cases and that takes true reasoning.

If all cases we've partook in, are understood, it helps us to solve future cases.

In theory, we find the mode of all cases, and this knowledge helps us to make stable predictions.

Whether or not a meteor hits the planet tomorrow, the probability the Sun will rise is very high and I can be sure that it will; though you will criticize my sureness, claiming it's illogical, that doesn't matter for we have to be creative at times.

There is no wisdom without creativity, rushed case by case reasoning is not philosophy, it's poor science to say the least.

To conclude, though I am being wise when I'm saying the Sun will rise in the morning, there's nothing inherently wrong with that wisdom, lest a meteor hits the planet and opposed arguments are correct. It's not the lotto, a lot of visible probabilities point to the fact I'm correct. If we're courageous and wise, it becomes clear that any philosophical problem can be solved. Again an egg likely holds a creature which we have no evidence for until it hatches, the prediction that it will hatch into a creature counts. If all predictions count, any philosophical problem can be solved.

:up:

Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation. — Anand-Haqq

And contemplation is where meditation and philosophy meet. Without biting each other like vampires.

All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it? — Anand-Haqq

Hagg!

No pun intended, but that could not be farther from the truth. How is "thinking about the truth an impossibility" ?

Considering much of philosophy lives in the logic of words, is it not your sense of wonderment that causes you to think about the truth that you currently do not have? It's really a two part question:

1. Why do we care to wonder? (Or what causes us to care & wonder?)
2. If we didn't wonder, what would our quality of life look like?

Thirdly, by you saying " If you don't know it, then how can you think about it" are you not reducing all thought or cognition to some sort of a priori logic?

Bonus question: in the spirit of the OP, is there mystery associated with our own sense of wonderment from our conscious existence? In other words, is wonderment an instinct, and if so, what Darwinian advantages does it have for surviving in the jungle, when instinct is all you really need?

Sorry for all the questions....maybe pick one or two and we'll parse from there... .
Thanks for your post!

I definitely agree that, 'There is no wisdom without creativity'. While I do spend so much time wondering about the mysteries which I identified I would say that I see creativity as essential. When I read authors writing, it is not just the ideas which draw me to it but the artistry of the writing.

So much of current philosophy is about accuracy, based on scientific thinking. I am not saying that is not important but I do believe that what makes certain writers stand out as wisdom does also depend on the creativity of the work, such as the writing of Plato, Camus, or Nietzsche. What they do is create a specific vision or worldview. This draws me towards philosophical and other writing and, inspires me in my contemplation of the mysterious, as well as leading me forward in my own quest for creative expression.

Your comment was very good and I particularly like, 'A philosophy thinking about the truth is like is just like a blind man thinking of the light'.

I spend so much time thinking and frequently beat myself up for not coming up with clearer answers, so it is reassuring to hear your idea that thinking about the truth is an impossibility. I find that every time I find each time l believe that I am gaining some clarity, the picture begins to fragment. I often feel like I am going round in circles and that is probably why I wrote this thread.

. Good you recognize it ... Rarely, a man can put the ego aside for a bit ... But you could, friend, while reading my "answer" ... I'm glad for you ...

. This is the first step for the path of wisdom; for the path of meditation; for the pathless path.

. But it is FULL of pitfalls, and tremendously risky, because in that moment you turn in a rebell; in a creator. That's the reason why man still lives comfortably miserable.

. In that moment, you are a Buddha- " You're in the world, but not of the world".

. But as I said, it's almost impossible ... Those who achieve that state ... are bound to be murdered by society or being marginalized ... Because they 're new ... they cannot fit with the so-called society patterns and prejudices ...

Actually, in the last six months I think that I have probably spent too much time reading and not meditating as much as would be helpful. I am hoping to join a meditation group when I can find one, but I could probably do more by myself while waiting. I remember one thing which I used to find valuable was meditating in the night, when I could not sleep before going to work in the morning.

Its so hard to put the ego aside, because it keeps rearing its ugly head, and niggling away. I do feel that when I have taken an interest in meditation and the inner path I have often felt scorned by others. However, I am more inclined to make friends with people who are into searching, rather than those who just like to go out partying.

I thank you for your couple of posts. It is often easy to get caught up in spending too much time looking for answers through reading and, neglect the searching for wisdom within.

I am not dismissing the importance of your emphasis on searching for answers within, but just wondering about whether meditation is not the best practice for the time of lockdown. The reason why I say that is because I did spend some time meditating last night and found that the effect was that I had really bizarre dreams.

I am not saying that I can make generalisations from that completely. However, it did make me wonder if for those of us who have spent too much time in a solitary world during lockdown, whether it could be the opposite of what we need at the moment. Perhaps, we need at this time to stay anchored and grounded in daily life rather than becoming more withdrawn from it. I know that you suggest the path of wisdom is risky. I am not saying that I will not follow such a path, but proceed with caution because we probably need to keep as balanced as possible.

I also wonder how this relates to others' experiences because life has been anxiety provoking in the last year for many people. I wonder whether meditation is inclined to hinder or help this. However, I am sure that there are many possible differences in this.

:up:

In your post, you ask about why we wonder. I believe that it interconnected with being human and the nature of consciousness. It is likely that wondering and the sense of mysteries led to most of the developments in civilisation, not just philosophy and religion, but the emergence of the arts and sciences.

As children we wonder so much, exploring our surroundings and looking up at the stars. I remember being so fascinated by time, and even though I didn't like maths, I was fascinated by Pythagoras's hypotenuse triangle because it seemed like it contained a hidden mystery. I think that a lot of people give up wondering as much once they get to adulthood. Many settle for conventional answers in religion and science, and move onto more tangible goals, but some keep on wondering endlessly, almost as if dreaming.

I am not completely sure why some people wonder more than others. It may be partly about values. The people who are more career oriented, for example, may gravitate more towards external achievements. It may also be that some individuals are less convinced by ideas which they have been taught, so they carry on wondering. It could be that for many people a less thorough exploration satisfies them until, at some point, life circumstances make them question further.

Personally, the reason why I keep wondering is because I feel that most of the explanations I have been told or read don't seem adequate, or fit together. I am sure that many people I know think that the reading and searching for an indefinite period of time is a waste of time, but I don't think that it is. I also see the whole process of wondering as an important aspect of creativity in its own right. If we stopped wondering at all life could become so mundane and hollow. And, as far as your question of the evolutionary value of wondering, I am inclined to think it acts as a general motivational factor in leading people to unique and creative solutions to all kinds of problems.

You are most probably correct to say that contemplation is probably the meeting point between philosophy and meditation. We probably need to be involved with the ideas on an intimate internal way rather than just being able to cite the ideas in the books or Wikipedia. I do believe that contemplation is as important as analysis, because it goes beyond mere logic.

And, you are definitely right to say that we 'need to stop biting each other like vampires' because that goes against the whole point of the exploration and I can't see how this helps those who are biting or the vampires themselves. Perhaps those who become the vamps are the most needy and lost souls.

. Meditation is the key to make you aware about the confusion that is repressed within you.

. It does not create confusion ... Just make you aware how confuse you're and make you aware that you don't know ... It makes you aware that you don't know life ... It makes you aware that you're still an animal ... you did not reach the state wich is beyond mind ... wich is beyond the biological needs ...

. But your so-called politicians and priests don't like people to gain that awareness and they use all the preventions ... and they've been succeeding since 5,000 years ago.

. When you turn into a rebell, into a true human being ... In that circumstances, you're not useful for the society, therefore a Jesus is murdered, a Socrates is poisoned.

. You are pure love; you are pure compassion ... A buddha is pure awareness ... He can see people stumbling in the dark unnecessarily ... creating their own hell ... creating their own nightmares ... and drowning in their created hell ...

. Inevitably, compassion will rise within them... They try to communicate to people that this is your own doing ... That you're not REALLY BLIND!!! ... You just HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO BECOME BLIND!!!!! ... The society teaches you to become blind ... The society likes blind people because they're never rebels ... they're always ready to obey to stupid politicians ... to obey to stupid priets ...

I do agree really, but just think that, aside from the politicians' biases, we need to go about the quest with a certain amount of balance. However, I am all in favour of understanding the inner world, and I have decided to go outside for a bit, while it's not raining, and start reading, 'A Vision, by W B Yeats. I have been wanting to read it for some time, so I won't procrastinate any longer.

I think that we need to learn from some of the greatest masters of wisdom.

. No ...

. You need to be a light unto yourself ... Books will make you more knowledgeable ...

. A wise being is not knowledgeable ... He is as an innocent child ... Pure ...

. You don't need to decorate scriptures nor to read them ...

. You need to read your book ... your inner book ... YES ... that's the only one worth reading ...

. But there's a tremendous fear ... you might be transformed radically ... so people think that it's better to live confortably miserable ... preserving their golden dreams ...

. Don't be afraid for being ignorant ... be afraid for being knowledgeable ...

You need to be a light unto yourself ... Books will make you more knowledgeable ...

. A wise being is not knowledgeable ... He is as an innocent child ... Pure ...

. You don't need to decorate scriptures nor to read them ...

. You need to read your book ... your inner book ... YES ... that's the only one worth reading ... — Anand-Haqq

So your 'knowledge' is that we shouldn't learn from the knowledge of others. Yet here you are, sharing your knowledge anyway. By your own assertion then, we shouldn't pay any attention to you.

I think that it is a mixture of both reading others thoughts and inner knowledge. As it is, most people don't even read the ideas of the wise ones.

. That's not a knowledge ...

. Just a truth being reflected by me ... Truth is never a knowledge ...

. It is existencial ... It is not your so-called philosophical jargon ...

That's not a knowledge ...

. Just a truth being reflected by me ... Truth is never a knowledge ...

. It is existencial ... It is not your so-called philosophical jargon ... — Anand-Haqq

Oh OK. So your truth is that we shouldn't learn from the truth of others. Yet here you are, sharing your truth anyway. By your own assertion then, we shouldn't pay any attention to you.