Philosophical fundamentals; the important ideas.

[333xforever]

As an entirety, I find philosophy idealism has not to say become, but "gets off track" per se, from the general principles of philosophy. The explanation may become hypocritical as every idea is philosophical. However, a fair amount of these ideas can become irrational in relation to the true meaning of philosophical fundamentals. In example, one will argue why the feline chases the rodent and philosophize that the feline has an instinct and chases the rodent for its own reasons. Now, there are three main principles to understand. The feline chases the rodent, why the feline chases the rodent, thus the idea, and the ideas of chasing, instinct, etc. On the other hand, another will argue: the feline has a universal knowledge given by its creator which the instinctual knowledge is circulated by emotion, and so on, the irrational ideas continue and become absurd. Now, all irrational ideas are not absurd, but the process from which they come and what they lead to, lose relevance to, as we say the true meaning of fundamentals and why we philosophize.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 333xforever

As an entirety, I find philosophy idealism has not to say become, but "gets off track" per se, from the general principles of philosophy. The explanation may become hypocritical as every idea is philosophical. However, a fair amount of these ideas can become irrational in relation to the true meaning of philosophical fundamentals. In example, one will argue why the feline chases the rodent and philosophize that the feline has an instinct and chases the rodent for its own reasons. Now, there are three main principles to understand. The feline chases the rodent, why the feline chases the rodent, thus the idea, and the ideas of chasing, instinct, etc. On the other hand, another will argue: the feline has a universal knowledge given by its creator which the instinctual knowledge is circulated by emotion, and so on, the irrational ideas continue and become absurd. Now, all irrational ideas are not absurd, but the process from which they come and what they lead to, lose relevance to, as we say the true meaning of fundamentals and why we philosophize.

It all starts from the question, why is there something rather than nothing? Not the qualities and properties of things that are, such as cats and mice, but the essence of existence on the whole.

This relates directly to the philosophy of self, as 'I am' is the original statement of being. As one ponders being, it's inevitable that they contemplate their own existence..

The reason philosophy begins and ends at being is, 'that I am', 'I exist', is the truthful inquiry, and it's at the foundation of it all.. .

[333xforever]

Originally Posted by Gem

It all starts from the question, why is there something rather than nothing? Not the qualities and properties of things that are, such as cats and mice, but the essence of existence on the whole.

This relates directly to the philosophy of self, as 'I am' is the original statement of being. As one ponders being, it's inevitable that they contemplate their own existence..

The reason philosophy begins and ends at being is, 'that I am', 'I exist', is the truthful inquiry, and it's at the foundation of it all.. .

Why the feline chases the rodent was merely an example of the whole of which philosophy has detoured to uselessness. You can go ahead and use the example of why they exist, ending with the same delusional absurdity. The irrational idealist will go out of his way to make up complete nonsense. They will use ideas that do not pertain to logical sense. All of there ideas will simply have no meaning. The way you would write a fictional story. The point of philosophy you see, is to come up with ideas that are in touch with reality. Not argue why the monster exists under the bed.

[cathutch]

Ultimately, philosophy is a forward search for the truth; and the truth is the Self.

Yesterday, Rosetta landed on an asteroïd, and everyone saw in that event, the sign of a great future for mankind.
Yet, this sounds again like trying to understand the future, while heading towards the past (the comet being older than us, evolutionary wise).
So it is said that we shall learn the future from the past - that we shall manipulates old & "new" symbols (math & computations) to reach that goal; and that we shall advance from that; as far as technology is concerned.
As far as Nature is involved, we shall evolve from all that.

But as far as knowing your Self, no real, concrete forward move can be found in it. None whatsoever.
Your being is not in your own self, but has that which it is in another - and that "another" is the Self.
If we were to take an analogy, we would say that the Self is the spectator, Nature is the dancer and the self (your-self) is the dance - There is no dance without the influence of the spectator. The dancer starts the dance as soon as he feels the influence of the spectator.

Your true Being (Self?/part of Self?) is the spectator.
Matter (energy) is the dancer.
The dance (including the ongoing influence of the spectator) is yourself (your semblance of being (yet real and concrete)).

Physically speaking, when the quantum fluctuations* (the influence of the spectator,) meet with potential energy (matter,) then starts the dance (the "world" and yourself).

How you can discover the spectator behind the fluctuations, is all about that forward philosophical search. The only possible onward search.
And ideas (and thoughts for which they exist,) are just a mean to be dumped in the process.
Stop the dance and leave with the spectator (as thoughts).Don't stay with the dancer (boring entangled resumption!).

O, and don't forget that the cash machine is where the dancer dwells.


Note: Spiritually speaking, I would put it this way: "I would not mind that the Self (the spectator) be God. Only that I have to say that (being the dance itself,) the dance sucks!"

* According to quantum theory, the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain ''fluctuations,'' transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 333xforever

Why the feline chases the rodent was merely an example of the whole of which philosophy has detoured to uselessness. You can go ahead and use the example of why they exist, ending with the same delusional absurdity. The irrational idealist will go out of his way to make up complete nonsense. They will use ideas that do not pertain to logical sense. All of there ideas will simply have no meaning. The way you would write a fictional story. The point of philosophy you see, is to come up with ideas that are in touch with reality. Not argue why the monster exists under the bed.

Since the thread was titled as it is, I merely talked about the fundamental philosophy, but I agree that most philosophical argument is absurd. What I find is that philosophers tend to be a repository of past philosophers, and they seem to think that philosophy is learning about old philosophers and knowing what they thought, but it's like they don't have a train of thought of their own.

It's become a competition of cleverness, but not intelligence, as it's easy to know a lot of philosophy, but there's no way a person can make themself have a new idea... new ideas are inspired through intelligence, not cleverness.

The last thing is that philosophy has become all about ideas, unlike the indian philosophy which is more about insights or discoveries.

[333xforever]

Originally Posted by Gem

Since the thread was titled as it is, I merely talked about the fundamental philosophy, but I agree that most philosophical argument is absurd. What I find is that philosophers tend to be a repository of past philosophers, and they seem to think that philosophy is learning about old philosophers and knowing what they thought, but it's like they don't have a train of thought of their own.

It's become a competition of cleverness, but not intelligence, as it's easy to know a lot of philosophy, but there's no way a person can make themself have a new idea... new ideas are inspired through intelligence, not cleverness.

The last thing is that philosophy has become all about ideas, unlike the indian philosophy which is more about insights or discoveries.

I agree with you completely. I second the statement referring to, philosophy is becoming the study of other philosophers.
A great philosopher will conceive through his own contemplation, a great idea which others can rationalize and use for themselves. Studying other philosophers makes us observers, not institutionalized philosophers.

I'm sure we can all agree, that the greatest purpose of philosophy is to enlighten others, including ourselves.

[sunsoul]

I like J Krishnamurti because he tends to both look directly at the problems related to thought, mind and self, and pull you to look at the entirety of thought yourself. Most philosophers are just chasing the mouse, yes.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 333xforever

I agree with you completely. I second the statement referring to, philosophy is becoming the study of other philosophers.
A great philosopher will conceive through his own contemplation, a great idea which others can rationalize and use for themselves. Studying other philosophers makes us observers, not institutionalized philosophers.

I'm sure it's beneficial to be well versed in the philosophers of the past. My interest is in how philosophical thought evolved throughout civilised history, but that's philosophy as a noun. The essential is retaining freedom of thought; that's philosophy as a verb.

I'm sure we can all agree, that the greatest purpose of philosophy is to enlighten others, including ourselves.

That is most certainly the focus of Eastern philosophy, but western philosophy evolved under different circumstances, and in my opinion, it's become too intellectual while not being inspirational enough. A healthy mix of Western and Eastern philosophy probably strikes a good balance there...

Totally, Sun. J Krishnamurti has a good insight along with a 'process' of thought. That's a rare combination of insight, eloquence and articulation.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by 333xforever

the true meaning of fundamentals and why we philosophize.

Philosophy is like music. Before you can improvise, you have to practice scales. Scales in philosophy are categories of a system. Know at least the system of a great philosopher, and know it well; then improvise. You don't have to agree with him.
Gaugin, the painter, used to say that he first learned thoroughly colors in Persian tapestry, then only did he start painting ad-lib. I guess that applies to philosophy as well.

As for fundamentals, the encounter between the ignorant Self and the potential Matter (Energy) are just about it. And all we are able to know is the influence of that ??? Self ??? on that potential Energy; we can only comprehend this influence that triggered the creation of an actual, real, objective, concrete and "evolutionary" world; but we cannot know the real essence of the influencer itself.

As for why we philosophize, it ensues that we are looking for that "impossible to know" Self, of which we only have the Notion (the truth in things) through the possible, (although difficult) knowledge of matter - plus - some qualities (but maybe not all) of that Self.
The puffiness of philosophers is to pretend to reach a perfect knowledge of this all entanglement.
They might one day understand the truth about matter. They might one day understand the truth behind "what" triggered matter. But I doubt they will ever understand clearly what is behind the later. Yet, heading toward this last goal is a sure way to approach it as close as possible - The impossible quest, and the greatest adventure of them all, I presume. The road to freedom, some will say.

Originally Posted by 333xforever

The irrational idealist will go out of his way to make up complete nonsense.

The rational idealist too.

Originally Posted by Gem

why is there something rather than nothing?

Hi Gem!,
Because the influence of the "Essence" as we and you call it, is made of nothing and something (quantum fluctuations).
Nothing and something sparks off this world and, although not entirely belonging to it, it is the necessity for its existence.
In other words, there is more than nothing and something. Nothing and something is just the influence of that "something more" on Energy.
The philosophical question is: "do we have all qualities and properties of that "something more" in the influence, or just a part?
Do we see smoke (and infer fire) - or - do we see the slice of pizza that is part (yet a full representation) of the whole pizza?
Does the influence of that "something more" contains an instance of the "something more", or just some kind of induction (that implies an imperfect extrapolation of it)."

Originally Posted by 333xforever

A great philosopher will conceive through his own contemplation, a great idea which others can rationalize and use for themselves.

Indeed that is the goal of ideas.
Ideas are made to develop through thoughts and their determinations (positing).
Like a child who passes in front of a mirror, over and over, and finaly makes an absolute idea of his physical appearance.
Encounter with the Notion -> First idea of himself -> posited through thought as -> form -> then reflection back in the old idea (substantiation) -> New encounter in the mirror implying a second more concrete idea of himself, etc. Until the Notion of his physical appearance is thouroughly ascertained.

Looking at the miror of philosophy, allows us to acknowledge the actual philosophical idea of the time, and move forward.
Philosophy is the sole & truly ongoing venture, as long as you acknowledge the past, without chasing it.
If I was to summarize philosophy in one sentence, it would be: "Trying to make the subject (whatever it is) concrete and real, so as to cognize and substantiate Itself as within and for Itself".


Cordially

[Gem]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Hi Gem!,
Because the influence of the "Essence" as we and you call it, is made of nothing and something (quantum fluctuations).
Nothing and something sparks off this world and, although not entirely belonging to it, it is the necessity for its existence.
In other words, there is more than nothing and something. Nothing and something is just the influence of that "something more" on Energy.
The philosophical question is: "do we have all qualities and properties of that "something more" in the influence, or just a part?
Do we see smoke (and infer fire) - or - do we see the slice of pizza that is part (yet a full representation) of the whole pizza?
Does the influence of that "something more" contains an instance of the "something more", or just some kind of induction (that implies an imperfect extrapolation of it)."

The process of contemplation inevitably leads to a dual paradigm. It's everwhere. Yin/Yang, as above so below, darkness and light... many representations.

As you say, we don't have to think of these in terms of contrasting principles. Well, in one sense we do, because the mind has make distinctions and compare the extremities, but when we consider this to be a representation, we can say it represents a 'simultaneous state' (which is merely portrayed by contrast).

It then becomes one state of being... which means that considering nothing and something to be comparable apart from the representation is fundamentally erroneous, or rather, superfluous.

It's superfluous only because our minds require a set of distinctions in order to formalise any perception, and the mind can not formalise anything beyond that limitation, which doesn't rule out a formless perception (or perception without assigned meaning), but said perception would necessarily be inexplicable.

In that science doesn't tell anyone about how the nature is, but rather, merely says something about the nature (Bohr 1963) it is wholly a representation. Since "the map is not the territory" (Korzybski 1995) there isn't an intellectual way to know what the universe is...

The mind (which is assumed by 'the mind') is the instrument of perception, the way in which we experience the universe is indeed akin to 'simultaneous states'.

Well, as I'm quoting Bohr so much recently (ty Wikiquote) I'll excuse my inarticulate expression with this: "Never express yourself more clearly that you are able to think" (uncited)



[quote]