What do you mean by insulation?

I followed the link and read some of the posts. I picked out:- "In modern science ultimate reality is thought of as a place of no things, in other words, unmanifested energy, while apparent reality is a place of things/objects. Objects, however, are manifest energies, but I suspect they are dependent on the effects of energy on the biological subject's body. Seeing as we cannot escape our subjective consciousness, however, to date it is impossible to know."

I understand now much better what you were talking about. I should have done that in the first place.

It's surprisingly difficult to draw a line that would put serious or valuable philosophy on one side and BS on the other. Which is interesting. Our little demarcation problem. — Srap Tasmaner

That's the trouble with philosophy. It tips over quite easily and one can go over the edge and down a rabbit hole without realizing what's happened. Philosophy requires self-criticism, which is a difficult art at the best of times.

Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to call them on the BS. — Darkneos

I don't know how well versed you are in philosophy, but I think the problem is in the Dao De Jing. It is very appealing, but it is not really philosophy as we understand it - nor is it meant to be. It is better to think of it as poetry or rhetoric designed to promote a state of mind or attitude. And there's all the cross-cultural issues as well.

One might as well try to apply conceptual analysis to the "Jabberwocky" - though actually, there's an interesting point about nonsense and meaninglessness to be drawn from it. (It kind of escapes the distinction - never forget that Dodgson was a logician and so must have known what he was doing. (Nonsense was a thing at the time - compare Lear. I think that people wanted to escape from the age in which they lived.))

You ( ) got sucked into the trap. The ability to spot the trap and resist being sucked in is what I meant by "insulated". I claim some ability to do that, from bitter experience. That's why I restrained myself. You asked

And if you weren't restrained? — Darkneos

. The answer is, I've forgotten, and would rather not know.

If you don't want to listen to someone who just wants an audience, the best response is to walk away (or disappear in this medium). If enough people do that, they'll either go elsewhere or try something different.

Philosophy should be hospitable, but if it is a philosophical environment, philosophy's rules apply.

Perhaps we should be thinking about the time before definitions are in place. Except, how can we say anything at all - even articulate a definition - without some definitions, or at least mutual understanding, in place. Perhaps all we can say is that dialogue has to start with a mutual willingness to engage.

In a more general sense the primary question of philosophy (posed millenia ago) is ‘How should I live my life?’

Such a question is BS to some because they just ‘live’ whereas for others it is intrinsic to their being. Some people question things and others do not.

So to call ‘meaning’ a bunch of BS is kinda silly. There are large swathes within the philosophical field that good numbers of people would not bother with where others choose to loiter. In some sense it is a bit like saying ALL science is BS … in truth there are areas within scientific interest that are more readily useful than others seem to be.

You may notice that to a chemist ‘chemistry is everything’ yet to a biologist ‘biology is everything’. Biased of preferences is a human condition. I am more or less for doing away with distinctions when they inhibit exploration.

if you thought that was bad check out this gem:

But what is logic to you if meaning is subjective? Under your own logic there can be no objective logic.

If meaning is relative then everyone is right and wrong under one context or another. If there is no objective meaning then your statement is subjective and opinionated.

If I say everything results in paradox and contradiction then by default I and everyone else have to end in contradiction/paradox. If I contradict myself, and at the other end point to the contradictions in others, I am only proving further that everything ends in contradictions/paradox.

I am un-sensify things.

Apparently if meaning is subjective then everything means nothing and nothing is right or wrong. No sense in arguing or doing anything.

Pretty sure the dude is mentally ill. Even philosophies like Buddhism distinguish between conventional and ultimate reality.

So pretty much there is no arguing with him over anything because meaning is subjective and everything just “is”.

Or

There is 'just is-ness'.

Which again sounds like Buddhism but that’s getting stuck at the “ultimate reality” and ignoring the “conventional” truth of reality. Or rather committing the mistake that thinking that something being conditional means it’s not real or doesn’t exist.

In a more general sense the primary question of philosophy (posed millennia ago) is ‘How should I live my life?’ — I like sushi

That's true and it is true also that it is still a live question for us. Whether the difference in context makes a difference is an interesting question. Also, does it follow from the primacy of that question millennia ago that it must be the primary question still? Or perhaps it may be primary for some people and not for others. Come to think of it, what makes it the primary question?

I am more or less for doing away with distinctions when they inhibit exploration. — I like sushi

I like the pragmatism about this. But does it follow that when distinctions encourage or even enable exploration, you are in favour? For example, I can distinguish between questions that I know the answer to and those that I don't know the answer to. Arguable, that distinction enables me to explore. Really, quite useful.

Which again sounds like Buddhism but that’s getting stuck at the “ultimate reality” and ignoring the “conventional” truth of reality. Or rather committing the mistake that thinking that something being conditional means it’s not real or doesn’t exist. — Darkneos

You're right. One might say that there is more than one reality, or that there is more than one level of reality, or that what is real depends on context, or that reality is subjective. I always want to insist that "real" is an adjective that distinguishes from "unreal" in all its many varieties. Either alternate is meaningless with a noun - what is it that is real or unreal? To put it another way "reality" is not an object or entity, but a property of objects and entities. I'll stop now, because it is very hard to capture the everyday use of the concept.

The idea that everything "just is" and nothing is very important is very helpful if you are anxious or confused and unhappy about it. I've taken refuge there myself from time to time. But if meaning is subjective, no-one else has to pay any attention.

That's the weird part, his own "logic" negates everything he is saying. Like if everything is subjective and according to you nobody is right or wrong about anything then...why should we listen? Better yet why are you talking, meaning is subjective so the words you use are too.

You see how quickly his own logic falls apart which is why I think he's mentally ill.

Though TBH the whole forum is full of nuts, case in point:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652788#p652788

As for putting in the work, all one is required to do is do the no body home work. Which is simple and easy, a child can do it. Because there is no one that is taking occupancy in a child, not until the child comes into contact by association as and through this artificial illusory possession of knowledge, leading it back to it's original image, the illusion of it's reality. The image of the imageless.

It very easy, is hard work.

Which sounds like nonduality, but a horribly flawed version of it. Nevermind that that is not how the self works, that's more like a soul.

It's like I said, these people want an audience, not a discussion.

I like the pragmatism about this. But does it follow that when distinctions encourage or even enable exploration, you are in favour? For example, I can distinguish between questions that I know the answer to and those that I don't know the answer to. Arguable, that distinction enables me to explore. Really, quite useful. — Ludwig V

Context matters. The further we abstract ideas and thoughts from experience the less tangible they become. Specialisation is useless if such ‘specialisation’ lives in its own terminological frame wholly separate - or rather seemingly so - from more mundane matters.

Categorisation is a symptom of a particular pedagogy that, given the practical evidence, seems less than optimal and more or less a mere force of habit. Finland is a prime example of how general problems are more fully understood and tackled by students in multiple ways effectively rather than simply looking through one myopic lens.

But I don't think that's what the people in my quotes are saying.

I think it's more like just not doing anything since everything is just subjective then nothing is right or wrong and everything just "is". It seems more like a cop out to avoid criticism. If there is no objective meaning and everything is subjective then you can't say I'm wrong.

Which is kinda childish IMO.

I was responding to someone else.

I can say you are wrong and provide reasons if I wish to. We can then go back and forth for a while … eventually we can agree upon definitions and how they are used in certain contexts. If we cannot agree on terms then we will miss the spot.

In general our terms are universal enough to allow for meaningful conversations. Sometimes misuse, or alternative uses, will slip by unnoticed.

When it comes to terms like ‘objective’ used in a colloquial sense we have little trouble understanding what is meant. In fields such as epistemology, sciences or fictional stories the term shifts to suit the medium.

Paradigm shifts will disrupt communication as we have to foster new ways to explicate new ideas/experiences.

I will also mention that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are prime examples of terms that have universality in one context but not in another. 1+1=4 is wrong, yet when it comes to ethics what is or is not ‘wrong’ can yo-yo back and forth within an individual perspective when new items come to our attention.

If we both see a dog in the street and one of us says ‘look at that dog’ we know what is meant. Objectivity in this sense in an object of understanding.

If you ask ‘what are you doing tomorrow?’ No one will fail to understand. What they can fail to understand are subtle inferences and reasons for asking/stating certain things.

You see how quickly his own logic falls apart which is why I think he's mentally ill. — Darkneos

Yes, I can see that. But I wouldn't move to a diagnosis of mental illness. Until they have been through some training, people are really not very good at logic. I have observed people who are clearly mentally ill whose logic is impeccable.

Specialisation is useless if such ‘specialisation’ lives in its own terminological frame wholly separate - or rather seemingly so - from more mundane matters. — I like sushi

Yes. That observation underpins the popularity of multi-disciplinary teams to pursue a project - particulatly a practical project. But the decision is a pragmatic one.

If we both see a dog in the street and one of us says ‘look at that dog’ we know what is meant. Objectivity in this sense in an object of understanding.

If you ask ‘what are you doing tomorrow?’ No one will fail to understand. What they can fail to understand are subtle inferences and reasons for asking/stating certain things. — I like sushi

I take it that you are identifying various reasons for communication failure, but not saying that there's always some hindrance to communication. That makes sense. Now all we have to do is to spot the hindrances when they apply and find a way round them. I would only add that it takes two to do that.

I mean obviously right and wrong are "relative" in the sense that it depends on context, because in a different world then there would be a different framework based on what is right and wrong.

But what is going on with the person I mentioned in that they are using this to avoid criticisms of their points while also trying to use the same framework of meaning that even ENABLES them to argue their point.

Judging from the other users who have more experience with that person than I do it's known, I just joined a week ago and while mental illness isn't something I'd say I can't deny something is really off about some of the users there.

Like I was saying before, they just want an audience for their views not a discussion.

I can't deny something is really off about some of the users there. — Darkneos

I get that feeling from time to time and if it's known, that's different. But the attribution isn't just coming from a post.

It is possible that I'm a bit sensitive about mental illness. But I do mind that it gets thrown about in a casual way that bothers me. People don't talk about cancer in the same way, do they? I worry that there's a lack of recognition that mental illness is really illness.

That's fair, but I don't think they throw it about casually. There is a clear pattern of behavior in their posts that hints at something.

I know because I was the same, though not to that degree. The posts I would ask about stuff would just be me repeating the same thing again and again even though people either weren't bothered by it or understood and didn't care.

People are strange.

I'm on the spectrum so....yeah, totally feel that.

That's fair, but I don't think they throw it about casually. There is a clear pattern of behavior in their posts that hints at something. — Darkneos

I think you might find it worthwhile to develop some understanding of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and related "personality disorders". It might help you recognize the pattern more clearly, as well as give you insight into how to deal with it.

is that what you think is going on in the links?

Everyone is on the spectrum, hence ‘spectrum’.

Not everyone.

wonderer1 is that what you think is going on in the links? — Darkneos

I hadn't looked at the link before I said that. That just struck me as possibly of relevance based on what you had said. I've read some of that thread now, and what I see is someone who knows enough science to probably keep some people off balance, but someone with a skin deep understanding of science that he uses to play the social status games that he likes to play on that forum.

That guy(?) is gaslighting, and gaslighting is pretty strongly associated with narcissism. (Consider Donald Trump.)

I think people on that forum as a whole don’t know enough about science to really cite it. The amount of misuses of quantum physics is already too many.

Though what did you mean by skin deep though?

Everyone is on the spectrum, hence ‘spectrum’. — I like sushi

That's true, although the pedant in me hesitates over "everyone". But it seems that recognition of spectra of mental illness is quite widespread and accepted. Indeed, there seem to be fashions in this. ADHD, personality disorder, autism and Asperger's are all examples.

I'm inclined to generalize (which is always dangerous) and say that it is often useful to see mental illnesses (insofar as they can be defined) as over-development of one or another personality trait which is not abnormal.

I have two "buts".

1. That applies to certain "physical" conditions as well. For example, it is perfectly normal to carry some fat store. But obesity is a clinical condition. Yet it is not more than an over-development of something that is normal. Addictions are similar. Cancers are different, but not dissimilar. Apparently, all of us develop cancerous cells; they are usually dealt with by our immune system. The ones that become dangerous have escaped that process. And so on.

2. It is easy to forget that there are examples of conditions that used to be thought of as mental illness (or even moral turpitude) have turned out to be the result of physical issues. Indeed, don't we think that, in the end, there will be a physical basis for most mental illness?

The amount of misuses of quantum physics is already too many. — Darkneos

Yes, but as someone who has not been trained in any scientific subject, I have to be a bit more complicated about that. Scientists also have a tendency to lecture the rest of us on topics that they have no special knowledge of; it's very difficult to challenge them in the security of their specialisms. Yet, scientific knowledge has consequences and surely the rest of us need to have a say about that.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. (My own bugbear is the misuse of relativity theory.) But it seems to me that there is bound to be a contested area when it comes to the significance (and even, in some sense, the interpretation) of scientific theory. (It's a special case of the problem of specializations as silos. Specialization is very powerful, but has its problems.)

Yeah. I get the ‘terminology’ just think it is dumb and historically such demarcations turn out to be mostly due to the need to fund research or push a certain theory. Needless to say there are uses in diagnosing some cases but there are also hazards when the distinctions are somewhat arbitrary in part.

I think people on that forum as a whole don’t know enough about science to really cite it. The amount of misuses of quantum physics is already too many. — Darkneos

Well, to be fair, there is an enormous amount of study involved in becoming conversant in sciences, and we are all born ignorant and are going to die only somewhat less ignorant. So it doesn't make sense to me to expect anyone to know everything. Why does it matter so much to you, what the people on that forum think?

Though what did you mean by skin deep though? — Darkneos

Superficial.

It is far from unusual to encounter philosophy focused people with a superficial understanding of sciences. Many learn little about sciences beyond what they find useful for rhetoric in support of their philosophical views. Such superficial views are what I refer to as skin deep.

and how are they doing that in the links I give. I’ll give you that their knowledge of science poor but how is it the case in the links?

Though I’m also doubtful of their logic. It seems like only a few people there understand how it works. Like one person I was talking to saying:

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

Never mind that not only the logic doesn’t follow but also doesn’t demonstrate there is a mind or that the mind is responsible for what’s going on.

turn out to be mostly due to the need to fund research or push a certain theory. — I like sushi

Well, that's a point of view and it may be valid in some cases. But I think it is a bit unfair as a generalization. Presumably you accept that the science that can only be done in a community and a culture. The community may ignore ideas that turn out to be worth pursuing and may be mistaken, but there's no help for that.

In our culture, if you want to do serious work (as opposed to armchair speculation), you need to be recognized by the community and funded by someone. What's the point in having a brilliant idea if the community doesn't recognize it and no-one will fund the research that would prove it? You can sit on the side-lines and complain - perhaps rightly - or find some work that you can do. It's not ideal, but it is the way things are.

In short, compromise is not necessarily selling out. It is the price you pay for the support of your community - and you can't do serious work without that.

Philosophers can be much more independent than scientists. But it has to develop in the culture that the philosopher lives in and that will set the starting-point and although in theory philosophers can work in total isolation, I can't really imagine such reflection amounting to more than musings. To do serious philosophy (even for fun) without resources (books, etc.) and a community is not possible.

Philosophy only works with a delicate balance between disagreement (about issues) and agreement (about how to discuss them). With people who don't understand that, the only solution may be to walk away, unless one decides to take on a difficult (and often quite boring) negotiation.

It's not ideal, but it's the only game in town - unless you are very lucky or able to compromise.

I wrestle with this as well.

The quote is self-refuting, i.e., it's expressing a particular philosophical point of view that basically says that philosophy is an exercise in futility. However, since the argument itself is philosophical, I guess we should conclude that it to is an exercise in futility. So, it refutes its own conclusion.

You try arguing with them, I had an aneurysm from trying.