But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan
It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan
I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan
Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question. — Corvus
Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least.It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan
As long as they are meaningful enough. — Corvus
Don't get offended if I give a wrong account of your world view. — Yohan
What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence) — Yohan
Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan
Logic can only eliminate falsehood. It disproves. It cannot explain what is but only what ain't. (I'm repeating myself...hmm). When logic is mistaken as positive rather than eliminative, you become a rationalist — Yohan
So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.
I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan
Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all? — Pop
I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts. — Pop
You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true. — Yohan
I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.
— Pop — T Clark
There is form essence and essence essence.
Form essence is what form qualities are necessary to call something a particular kind of form — Yohan
If you want to get into this, we should probably start very basic, starting with definitions of mind, matter, and reality.
If you define reality as being the objective material world, then your definition already presumes materialism as true. We need to start with a definition of reality that doesn't assume either idealism or materialism, if possible.
I don't know, do you feel this would be worth the effort?
I lean toward feeling this would be a vain pursuit. — Yohan
What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)
Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan
I'm not saying the materialist does it consciously. They are engaged in double-think. They see and touch what is beyond perception. It sounds absurd, but this is literally what they think is going on. I know, because I was raised in a materialist culture, and I still do this double-thinking most of the time.1. Materialists don't consider appearances as things in themselves. They actually concede the point that all that we have to work with are appearances but...they say...the thing in themselves exist independent of the mind. — TheMadFool
I don't think Idealists literally think fundamental reality is conceptual. They believe the phenomenal world is conceptual. They believe in. Awareness --->conceptualization----->world.Idealists don't claim that concepts are maps of appearances, that creates a gap between appearances and concepts as if appearances are independent of the mind, they're not (according to the idealist). What idealists are averring though is that the thing in themselves are concepts, the appearance being merely how these concepts present themselves to us. — TheMadFool
ThanksAll in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.
Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others. — T Clark
I didn't want to get too academic I guess. Sometimes academia takes away the flavor, grace, and accessibility.So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.
I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan
I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people. — T Clark
I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.
Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.
I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals. — Yohan
Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least. — Yohan
I like these definitions. Crisp.essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life — Corvus
I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"? — Yohan
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.