My theoretical framework

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Comte says nothing of the sort. He is the granddaddy of positivism. You could not have mis-characterized him more thoroughly than by associating him with solipsism.

Proving my point. Thanks.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you read the OP carefully it is not describing Solipsism, it is describing Positivism. A Solipsist would say the phenomenon was the noumenon.

Also he says "notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world"

Exactly. Now, how good is some of our staff of resident "skeptics" if they are unable to simply read and understand a few sentences?

 

[D'rok]

Thanks. Yes. Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see. I wrote it so it would appear as "typical" woo stuff so we could all spot, on the fly, who doesn't read and who read what she/he wants to read, instead of what is written.

Would you like to try an honest restatement then? Perhaps leaving out tripe like this:

There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And this, my friends, is why philosophy is worth a fart in a collander.

No.

This is merely how you show your absolute ignorance.

Everything we think is a philosophy, as you read it. We happen to act based on certain beliefs; that the sun will come back tomorrow, that your car will start again, that the toothbrush is a solid object that serves a concrete function, and so on.

Those beliefs are simply concepts in your mind, you don't KNOW if tomorrow will be another day, you just ASSUME IT. This simply, everyday assumptions are a philosophy, so don't come to tell more nonsense.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I've been waiting for someone (anyone) to show me why philosophy isn't worthless.

How do you KNOW that what you are saying have MEANING?

What is this word: MEANING?

How is the language related to the world?

How come I can write a sign and you can understand it?

What, exactly, is an explanation?

This is philosophy (of language) and if you can't see its importance its ok. Philosophers do not need you at all.

 

[D'rok]

C'mon Socrates. Was there anything of substance in your OP? Quit gloating and spill the beans. Less woo-speak, more meat this time, if you please.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Would you like to try an honest restatement then? Perhaps leaving out tripe like this:

You haven't understand A THING.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

C'mon Socrates. Was there anything of substance in your OP? Quit gloating and spill the beans. Less woo-speak, more meat this time, if you please.

Where, exactly, is the woo part?

You can take your time.

 

[D'rok]

Where, exactly, is the woo part?

You can take your time.

Oh good grief. Nice knowing you.

 

[PixyMisa]

Thanks. Yes. Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see. I wrote it so it would appear as "typical" woo stuff so we could all spot, on the fly, who doesn't read and who read what she/he wants to read, instead of what is written.

Yes, including making your fourth paragraph contradict your second, thus reducing it to drivel. What did you expect? It's not our job to decode your cryptic utterances.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I more-or-less agree with Robin here. What BDZ has just described is materialism, but expressed in the most confusing terms possible.

Your handy BDZ to Reality translation guide:

Noumena = real world.
Phenomena = thoughts.

So by this simple substitution, we get:

Consciousness is made of thoughts, yet it is caused by the real world.

Which is perfectly true.

ETA: Of course, his fourth paragraph contradicts the second, but we have to make allowances.

Pixy, not true. Yes, materialism and my "ism" works with the same degree of confidence, but epistemologically and ontologically they are different.

What do you mean about the fourth paragraph? Care to explain where do you see the contradiction in more detail?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well, if you're going to define it that broadly -- and as an outsider to the field I reckon I have no reason to object -- then I have to concede the point.

And, much as I hate to admit it, some of Robin's arguments regarding the critical role of political philosophy in the minds of specific persons at specific junctures in history are starting to grow on me, especially if I take your lens to it.

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.

That said, I still believe that the larger perspective needs to be taken into account as well, such as the points made about the evolution of democratic systems in Athens.

Haha, I hear yah!

I used to be pretty frustrated with the field of philosophy for a while because -- to me -- it always seemed like it dealt with angels-on-pins arguments. Philosophy without any grounding is irrelevant.

On the same token, any field (especially scientific ones) without a robust grasp of philosophy is blind and will tend to stagnate.

There has to be a healthy balance for there to be any kind of fruitful intellectual pursuit.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Oh good grief. Nice knowing you.

You started it!

 

[Piggy]

Classy, a good answer, you are really good demonstrating your intelligence in the forum.

I say what I mean.

And that's exactly what I meant.

Your OP is word salad.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think what BDZ is saying is that in a philosophical sense, post-positivist introspections have some merit. In renouncing a materialistic interpretation of sensory phenomena, one an tap the inner senses of a personal nous and logos, combining the best of ancient philosophy with modern post-enlightenment traditions. In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists. Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

 

[Piggy]

Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see.

They have no choice when you present them with nothing more than a verbal Rorschach test.

 

[Piggy]

No.

This is merely how you show your absolute ignorance.

Everything we think is a philosophy, as you read it. We happen to act based on certain beliefs; that the sun will come back tomorrow, that your car will start again, that the toothbrush is a solid object that serves a concrete function, and so on.

Those beliefs are simply concepts in your mind, you don't KNOW if tomorrow will be another day, you just ASSUME IT. This simply, everyday assumptions are a philosophy, so don't come to tell more nonsense.

Save it for the dorm room bong party, ok?

Toothbrushes aren't concepts.

Confusing the idea of a thing for the thing itself is a sophomoric mistake.

 

[Piggy]

How do you KNOW that what you are saying have MEANING?

What is this word: MEANING?

How is the language related to the world?

How come I can write a sign and you can understand it?

What, exactly, is an explanation?

This is philosophy (of language) and if you can't see its importance its ok. Philosophers do not need you at all.

It is the clear mark of a charlatan to be always asking questions while making no effort to seek answers.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Or more likely, like Comte, Mach and so on, is neither dualist nor monist. Both of these positions assert that we can know something about the noumena.

Thanks for noticing it. I do believe that all we can know are (so to speak) patterns of brain activity, but not what is "out there". Now, we can (and) do hypothesis about it all the time, but, IMHO, it is important to never forget that our models are merely that, models, and that you are not sitting right now in front of any computer. Heck, even the you on you is nothing but certain patterns of that unknowable "stuff".

 

[D'rok]

I think what BDZ is saying is that in a philosophical sense, post-positivist introspections have some merit. In renouncing a materialistic interpretation of sensory phenomena, one an tap the inner senses of a personal nous and logos, combining the best of ancient philosophy with modern post-enlightenment traditions. In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists. Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

I think Alric nailed it:

Post-modernism alert!!

Fire the objectivity cannons.