User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 23

  1. #11
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Not intentionally. The New Testament epistles, especially the Pauline ones, have shaped the way I think and live. He fleshed out (or trashed, depending on who you're talking to ) the teachings of Jesus to help Gentiles, raised without the Law, gain an understanding of Christ's significance and how to live in a way that honors Christ.
    OH! It makes more sense now

    I guess I will be doing research.... The Bible is not one of my strong suits
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #12
    Senior Member raincrow007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Is there a dentist in the forum?
    (Yes yes the perfect INTP answer. You make an excellent role model m'dear.)
    Is that your final answer or could you be persuaded to illustrate
    I might be persuaded, but probably not by you.

    See the formerly wooly canuck jesus' sundowning's answer again for elaboration. S'close enough. Except he's far more positive than I am.

    *shrugs*

  3. #13
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raincrow007 View Post
    I might be persuaded, but probably not by you.

    See the formerly wooly canuck jesus' sundowning's answer again for elaboration. S'close enough. Except he's far more positive than I am.

    *shrugs*
    Makes a lot of sense. See now that wasn't that bad now was it?

    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #14
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    I don;t follow any philosophies directly, any i do follow are accidents, because all of them miss features of how the world actually works. I sort of have a mixed group of principles that I sort out follow and try to sort out while acting on them.

  5. #15
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergling View Post
    I don;t follow any philosophies directly, any i do follow are accidents, because all of them miss features of how the world actually works. I sort of have a mixed group of principles that I sort out follow and try to sort out while acting on them.
    Do you find yourself envying those with a singular and well defined philosophy? Find yourself wishing that you too could have such clarity of approach or do you think them perhaps a little short sighted in their devotion and that actually the confusion is part of how to get closer to the truth itself?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Yes in theory you are completely free but in reality such things are naturally constrained by the inertia set up by the society. I guess that total freedom comes with the cost of total resistance. Perhaps then total freedom is possible but just not plausible nor probable?
    I would probably think so, but for me the obvious expression of this would be to give up every material good created by another's hand and go live in the bush eating bugs and berries.

    In this sense, even your prior socialization to this natural state would corrupt your 'true freedom' somehow, as your entire way of thinking hinges on your past (social) environments. Even though you'd no longer be required to act in a social, the effects would still be present.

    Broadly speaking, I think it can be healthy self-expression to want to cut yourself off from society, or isolate yourself from the social miasma (to an extent), but it seems to me you're always going to be carrying around... almost like a 'platonic' debt to every human being that has ever taken part in shaping you, from your parents to the dude that poured the cement for the sidewalk you used to squish ants on as a kid.

  7. #17
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post

    Hmm I'm going to have to research some of that before it makes sense. Sounds like you've got a fairly complete intuitive system.
    Yeah, I do. It's a fairly solid foundation, with wich I assimilate and explore other topics...
    Especially my epistemology and philosophy of mind seem to be thoroughly linked, since a kantian notion about noumena/phenomena ties in nicely with my scepticism, wich is grounded in what Sextus Empiricus advocated; he mentions that true scepticism is a mindstate, not just an epistemological theory. It's about postponing judgement to gain 'quittude' or 'ataraxia'... Next to that, it's also about the impossibility of knowledge about 'ultimate reality' (noumena, in Kantian terms)...
    My way of doing philosophy is walking in circles, so to speak. I first start with postponing judgement about anything already investigated, to create an opening for my new 'revision' of whatever I'm studying, then I start to work on a canon, and when I'm finished, I postpone judgement about anything I myself uncovered... That way, my naturally inquisitive mind gets it's thing done, while I still remain truely sceptical about everything... I start with ataraxia, and I also end there. What happens in between might be considered 'semi-dogmatical', as that's how I explore other systems; through hypostasis, not hypothesis. That way, I can explore systems internally, instead of having an external position.
    Anyway, it all works like one giant system (except for the political stuff)...

    My notion of the mind is:
    -we can only experience phenomena, while the noumenal world remains 'hidden', so to speak, just like the a priori mental operations; though our a priori mental operations can be slowly uncovered through phenomenology, the noumenal world remains a mystery... We can't even decide if the noumenal world is a thing (nominal ontology) or things (plural ontology)... So I define the kantian 'thing in itself' as 'thing/things in itself', to show my absolute doubt about it (ontology) all. I do regard us (our bodies and minds) as part of the universe though, since we are immanently placed in the universe; from that pov, it really doesn't matter if we're part of a nominal or plural universe.
    - We have unconscious and conscious regions of the mind, where the cognitive framework (worldview) is influenced by our stance towards unconscious behaviour (human instinctive faculties)... We also have a personal unconscious, in wich our complexes reside... Those being repressed memories, unresolved tensions etc.
    - Our phenomenological field can be sub-devided in 'body', 'mind' and 'senses', because those are the categories consciousness operates in; this distinction is merely intellectual though, because in reality, it all works in tandem. This distinction is useful in analysing various properties, but is by no means phenomenologically valid, and whenever I run into troubles, I abandon it.

    Epistemology:
    -Truth is the 100% verisimilitude of thought and reality; but because we can never attain nor check it, this is an impossibility. We can never know anything about 'ultimate reality', because 1)we can't know if we'll encounter refuting evidence in the future, 2)we can't thoroughly reason back to a 'first cause' (regressus ad infinitum) and 3)all our investigations are based on various paradigms, wich are subject to change also...

    Ethics:
    - Being ethical is a choice.
    - Freedom and being ethical are internally linked, as it's impossible to force an ethical stance on someone; it needs to be integrated into a worldview, wich is a subjective operation.
    -'Big' ethical theories aren't necessary, since I regard ethics to be a priori; if it that wouldn't be true, providing ethical examples would be rather impossible.
    - Because ethics is intuitive, being a 'good' person doesn't need much explanation; just striving to be a good person is more than enough, since the 'right' choice would be made in each situation, provided that one takes the freedom of oneself and of others into account.
    - Being a good person is not the same thing as being a saint; 'the good' isn't the same thing as 'being perfect' (yeah, sophism, I know. It does represent nicely what I believe in though, and I'm not trying to write a book, here )

    Regarding politics, well, it's not that handtailored. I just am an anarchist, and that's the end of it. I really don't like politics, as I regard it more as a rhetorical excercise than anything. All politicians are demagogues.

    I'm sure I left something out somewhere, but as I said, I'm not trying to write down my magnum opus, here.
    How do you reconcile that you don't agree with their position and yet their thinking is valid? I know that each person hold wisdom and that each can and will follow their own path but I cannot quite come to a satisfactory balance between me thinking that method of thinking is wrong and me thinking that the person is wrong.
    I'm a sceptic. There's no 'ultimate truth', not even if someones reasoning is valid. I'm also a rhetorician, so am quitte aware that being convinced is something quitte different than stating 'ultimate truths'. A logos argument doesn't turn ones thesis into anything, it's just a logos argument.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  8. #18
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    I would probably think so, but for me the obvious expression of this would be to give up every material good created by another's hand and go live in the bush eating bugs and berries.

    In this sense, even your prior socialization to this natural state would corrupt your 'true freedom' somehow, as your entire way of thinking hinges on your past (social) environments. Even though you'd no longer be required to act in a social, the effects would still be present.

    Broadly speaking, I think it can be healthy self-expression to want to cut yourself off from society, or isolate yourself from the social miasma (to an extent), but it seems to me you're always going to be carrying around... almost like a 'platonic' debt to every human being that has ever taken part in shaping you, from your parents to the dude that poured the cement for the sidewalk you used to squish ants on as a kid.
    Do you associate freedom then with being what you would be if nothing else existed or is it more the freedom to do as you will?

    I agree that it's healthy to partially want to be yourself, set apart from all that created you. It's the basic human need to be more than the sum of their parts. However realistically the desire to be natural (which you indicated as similar to freedom) would perhaps be personal to you? I'd think that many like their creature comforts and that their version of freedom would be the ability to freely enjoy such things, though this itself does involve dealing with (and therefore being changed by) external forces.

    So if freedom really about receding back to what you were or is it freedom of the next choice including what you are?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #19
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    ---see above---

    Can't really argue or add a single thing. Cool.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #20
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    I don't have a philosophy. I have a metaphilosophy.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. Star Trek: TOS "The Fairest Of Them All"!
    By Mal12345 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-16-2014, 05:46 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 03:22 AM
  3. one hope to eat us all
    By entropie in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 01:19 PM
  4. Do you need to sympathize with characters to enjoy them?
    By Ivy in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:28 AM
  5. Promises for yourself - what do you do to keep them?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO