First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Can you define the cosmology/philosophy you operate under?
15298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / M
Offline
Posted 11/13/17 , edited 11/14/17
I think some people think that they don't have a philosophy and that it doesn't matter, but the fact is that you do and it literally serves as the foundation of how you move yourself through life and intemperate your experence. So if you do have an idea of the philosophy/cosmology you operate under can you define it?

Here are some questions you can start with: Who do you think you are? What do you think humans are? How were humans in the past? What do you think the world is? How do you and the world relate? What's the meaning of life? Is there even one? Is that even a worthwhile question? What is life? What is your experience? What's real? What's imagination? What is truth? How do you know something is true? What is belief? How do you justify your beliefs? Why do you think the way you think?

So if your gonna use terms,labels, or ambiguous words concisely define and describe what you mean when you use those words.
1156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101
Offline
Posted 11/13/17 , edited 11/14/17
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/13/17 , edited 11/14/17
I think most people here, when it comes to epistemology, are naturalists. They accept explanations for phenomena that are ultimately based in naturalistic assumptions. That is, they would not accept supernatural phenomena as explanations since they are not reducible, through materialistic assumptions, to a fundamental substance of the world being some physics-based mix of matter and energy. I can think of some exceptions among the people who post regularly to this forum though.

I am Buddhist, and the way I square the non-naturalistic explanations of karma, reincarnation, and the Buddha with my naturalistic beliefs is that I try to live as if conventional Buddhist dogma were true. If you get away from the folk beliefs and supernatural aspects, however, there are some sophisticated epistemological commitments there. That is, Mahayana Buddhism is fundamentally anti-foundationalist.

I wish I were well-read enough to give an account of nothingness in Buddhism that is consistent with such Western philosophers as Wilfrid Sellars and his "myth of the given," but alas I am unqualified to do that. To summarize the concept of Nothingness, (perhaps incompletely,) Buddhism does not believe that anything has a fixed existence but it also does not believe that nothing exists. Being and Non-being are considered two extreme positions that are both discarded. Instead, it holds that all things in this world contingently exist, and are subject to change--this description of the world is called Nothingness, which Buddhism further insists is also devoid of any kind of substance essentialism, as all conceptual ideas and even physical objects are so held in Buddhism. All things are said to have the property (and non-property) of Emptiness.

I found this interesting quote while reading an intellectual biography on Nishida Kitaro, and what the author writes about Goethe could easily be applied to the Buddhist view of the world.


On November 11 Nishida began working on a poetic essay, “Gëte no haikei” [The background of Goethe’s poetry]. He saw similarities between the world of Goethe’s poetry and his view of the self-determination of the eternal now: “Time flows from the eternal past to the eternal future; time is born in eternity and disappears in eternity. Everything that takes place in history is shaped over against eternity as its background.” To Goethe, nature, rather than “ought,” was the ultimate reality and was imbued with the “eternal feminine” ( Das ewig Weibliche), and thus embraced humanity and offered salvation. Nishida concluded that the worldview that underlies Oriental culture —“everything arises having no place to arise from, and everything disappears, having no place to disappear to; everything that exists is eternal in its existence”—also informed Goethe’s world.


There is some connection with this strain of thought and Sarvastivadan Buddhist thought, which holds that, in spite of unceasing change, the phenomena of the past, present, and future all exist.
mxdan 
12081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/13/17 , edited 11/14/17

Potentsaliva wrote:

I think some people think that they don't have a philosophy and that it doesn't matter, but the fact is that you do and it literally serves as the foundation of how you move yourself through life. So if you do have an idea of the philosophy/cosmology you operate under?

Here are some questions you can start with: Who do you think you are? What do you think humans are? How were humans in the past? What do you think the world is? How do you and the world relate? What's the meaning of life? Is there even one? Is that even a worthwhile question? What is life? What is your experience? What's real? What's imagination? What is truth? How do you know something is true? What is belief? How do you justify my beliefs? Why do I think the way I think?



I think that our ancestors were rooted in world that didn't have a facade of safety. Due to this they weren't thinking as abstractly about the world. Thoughts were more or less determined by practicality.

That still exists but as I've eluded to in other threads philosophy has evolved and permeated our culture in several key ways. The first major change in modern terms was the Enlightenment which lead to a revolution that understood that key truths about the world could be found externally in our surroundings. That truth wasn't endowed by knowledge found in teachings handed down in religious texts but in individual contributions that were held to a methodology that could be scrutinized and reinterpreted. Suddenly philosophy was something to strive for. This was the Modernist way of thinking.

From our revolutions in science and technology something else was happening though -- Giant bloody inhuman wars with machines that took the humanity out of the fight. Bombs that could wipe out entire cities. Gases that could choke out entire battle fields in minutes. Fear of the power we were cultivating and mistrust in development for the sake of development.

Through the work of people like Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida (Famously hard to understand in case you want to read up on him) we had philosophers who were now trying to emphasize subjectivity rather than objectivity. I'm overtly simplifying this but basically what you had were people who started to believe that progression without the ethics to pick out net positives in experience, were useless, as it lead to terrible things more often then not. The rise of Postmodernism in the 1960's. The short of it is the rejection of objective reality in substitute for moral relativism. Philosophers who advocate this train of thought think that any stance can be justified with enough time to do so and that people are rooted in their baser desires for any number of issues.

This new way of looking social constructs has largely influenced the way people have come to think about the modern world philosophically. People do in fact justify everything regardless of the objective science we may have.

Obviously there is a problem here Science and Philosophy are at odd ends now and we are starting to exist in a limbo were we reject an agreed upon standard. Postmodernists might argue that the standard is the one that is a net positive. But without a tangible reality to base something on it would seem a positive isn't even something people can agree on.

----

Where do i stand? Left of center towards modernism. I think there are intrinsic truths that we should fight to understand and use as a standard to debate on. But I also think there is a value in deconstructing certain destructible narratives in order to enshrine something more positive. But what I think we absolutely shouldn't do is reject sense based reality. Throwing everything away is cultish, almost religious in nature. It's a return to the dark ages as it makes discovery near impossible. What is green? Objective reality has an answer. Subjective reality is binary, abstract, undefinable. It's making everyone into god and is so selfish in practice that it's like covering your ears and eyes to everything but your experience and making it the only one that matters.

It's destructive to society, not progressive. At least in today's world.
runec 
40542 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
I spent a number of years with Buddhism as well which still serves as a good compass. But, technically I'm a pandeist.

Sadly, it has nothing to do with pandas.

1197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
Humans are still the savages we were in the past. Some of us are just more polite, albeit more destructive about our savagery. There's no reason behind us, we just move because if we didn't move we would be standing stillm
35702 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
Free thinking.


Potentsaliva wrote:

So if your gonna use terms,labels, or ambiguous words concisely define and describe what you mean when you use those words.

Meaning, in layman's terms, that my thoughts and value systems are free to change depending on the situation at hand.
Your example of thought of the self doesn't subject me to feel a certain way about the thought of a population of people. And a thought about one population of people doesn't constrain me to thinking a certain way about a separate population of people. Etc.
36683 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
probably Khorne
12864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
I drink therefor... something...

Cool, there is another beer in the fridge.
mxdan 
12081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17

runec wrote:

I spent a number of years with Buddhism as well which still serves as a good compass. But, technically I'm a pandeist.

Sadly, it has nothing to do with pandas.



Buddhists understood the the law of energy without fully understanding the science behind it and applied it to ethics. It's amazing really. I was raised Christian and arrived at it eventually in my life. I meditate and look at the world on similar terms but I've never actually studied it in full. With that said, if there is a subjective good I think a true Buddhist is close to it. I have nothing but respect for them.
Humms 
13410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
Hmmmm.

I can live with or without you, cherish friendship with loyalty and respect. I can live as a void to all, or I can be a man of great promise. There is no reason for it, there is no hate, it is simply the way I function. Existence is how I see fit

I do not think of the past, because all the past has shown me is either mistakes, or achievements. Looking forward on what we could be accomplishing, discovering something about ourselves and the capabilities of the world.

The world itself is a paradise. We just need to realize that.

It's like we are defining our existence to others. How does anyone begin to realize the life of another without even meeting them.

Maybe it's just silly of me to assume everything is how it seems. Lately things have been becoming more real to me. I think it's just people that sometimes get in the way.. to forget the very idea of why we do something in the first place.

What is time? What is Life? 365 days. Each year you grow older, and what you do in this life determines your results. What is life without money? Get use to it, because nobody will. We cannot simply beg for what you need and want, and if you do, you will become the very thing that makes the world dysfunctional. Why do people beg still, to this day, they beg at their knees. For What? For health? For sustenance? Greed?

I guess I never understood how life really works, why we do anything. I don't get it.. Happiness is suppose to follow your ambitions, why do people assume something about you? When you have never even met before, here, now. When a voice that is unheard becomes clear.

You look at other people's lives as something precious, so in the end what can we believe is the truth when it is overtaken by joy, love, and unity. If we could, we can be God's of our universe, hero's of our time, men and women who lived by something. If you see life as a joke, to end it all, why? The moments we experience no matter how great or small; we can look at them, we can still hear them, feel them, want them again in our life.

Believe whatever you want to believe, I don't think the world is going to suffer because of it. If we do? I guess that's just the way humans function... rightfully so, to this day, on this hour, what have we learned? People still die for the same reasons, we all get disposed of in the same way, respect verses disrespect, right or wrong, fair and unfair, truth and lies.

If you try to catch the world in the palm of your hand you realize you are unstoppable. Make it so, because reality will crush you if you don't.

Humms 2020

Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/14/17
As I type this, the present is becoming the past. The fantasy world of the future does not exist. If we live to our best, we leave behind a better record for others. If not, oh well. It won't be the first nor the last, but it will be yours.
runec 
40542 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mxdan wrote:
Buddhists understood the the law of energy without fully understanding the science behind it and applied it to ethics. It's amazing really. I was raised Christian and arrived at it eventually in my life. I meditate and look at the world on similar terms but I've never actually studied it in full. With that said, if there is a subjective good I think a true Buddhist is close to it. I have nothing but respect for them.


You don't even really need to study it in full to glean an moral or philosophical benefit. Just understanding the basics of mindfulness, suffering and emptiness can really change how you view your day to day interactions with the world.
-OlE- 
1717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nebraska
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

runec wrote:

I spent a number of years with Buddhism as well which still serves as a good compass. But, technically I'm a pandeist.

Sadly, it has nothing to do with pandas.



dude, you need to incorporate some pandas into that somehow. i guarantee that would at least double the popularity of pandeism
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mxdan wrote:
Buddhists understood the the law of energy without fully understanding the science behind it and applied it to ethics. It's amazing really. I was raised Christian and arrived at it eventually in my life. I meditate and look at the world on similar terms but I've never actually studied it in full. With that said, if there is a subjective good I think a true Buddhist is close to it. I have nothing but respect for them.


I've been trying to understand what you wrote here, and I've since given up and decided to just ask. What do you mean by "the law of energy" and how can it be applied to ethics?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.