|
| Ray Butler
@sapienite, I will just explain what I mean by concept. Yes we take in information and it becomes knowledge. We rationalize the best uses for that and apply it. But conceptualizing is the method of application that we have designed, the act of turning knowledge into a use. There is the best way but there are also often many right ways besides this best way and there are ineffective and/or dangerous ways to turn knowledge into an applicable concept.
A point you made about duty, I don’t think it is ever bad, it is how the sense of duty in people is manipulated toward the wrong goal that is wrong. Duty is a noble characteristic, that so many people have it but are not equipped with directing correctly, or they are but have no confidence in their own judgement, or they sell out their control of it.
About purpose: Yes, I see now what you mean, purpose is not the begining, it is the goal. Cause is the begining, but what motivated cause? Perhaps a sense of the goal? When you say that I suggest cause was intentional, well cause has had a result, you cannot argue that, but how could cause come into existence without motivation and if nothing motivated it to come into existence then what was stopping it? The only answer is a cause chain reaction has always been bouncing around the universe but that means infinite and infinite is paradoxical.
But paradox is really only a conceptual impass, it only exists because we don’t understand it, otherwise a paradox is completely normal. So if the universe is based on paradox then everything we dismiss as wrong may well be right, we only dismiss it because it is a contradiction toward a favoured view.
|
|
| Joshua
For the record, being the only one that Knows in a world of fallacies is not fun; i’d think your interest proves you understand. I spoke right out of my Philosophy as it was in more completed form, I didn’t expect people to immediately understand. This being a website of thinkers (for the most part), I like to see how anyone may react to where I am. I’m sure plenty of people, including you, have gotten some themes from my jargon, but i never expected people to just get it: plenty of the words I use are redefined and moved to explain more essentially. Clearly, then, you cannot understand me fully; hell, I wouldn’t be able to a year or two ago when i started. I had, at that time, chosen to start over, disregarding everything i was “certain of” and having only the hope of finding Truth through dialectic. The jargon i now use is a product of two years in critiquing more than just philosophies, but religions, countries, histories, etc. Consequently, I have taken everything altogether and now have Synthesis. Although i started over, my hope of finding Truth was synonymous with a hope for understanding Perfection, and therefore HOW to Perfect the Universe: so the “end” of the Universe is very much a concern for me; it is the Perfect Ideal.
If i really wanted to philosophize with you, i would not make a post on how something is, i would ask questions and work with you in the same process to find the answers: that is philosophizing – thinking together. This is not, as it is, thinking together; it is opinionated argumentation, where one side says what they’ve discovered and the other says theirs, but we cannot just start such a communication without first discussing terms and reverting to the simplest cases, building up from there (unless we were to ACTUALLY Philosophize); but as this is just a post about “Selfish Love”, negative argument is inevitable. I am not saying that people can’t agree, nor am i saying that we can’t, i’m just saying that this is not the right way of doing it.
I apologize for my malice, but i really only posted this for anyone to notice some themes that i know but some may be intuitive enough to decode. “Spirit” for instance, means many things to many people, but to me it means one essential thing: a’midst the rest of my dialogue, if you are able to decode the essential meaning of “spirit”, you will learn something of the whole thing. It’s a good practice, and i call it Thematic Knowledge.
|
|
| Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
|
|
| Joshua
To me, it is the FIRST cause that is more irrelevant. The essence of nature is Potential, as I’ve said, so the USE of that Potential is purposes and goals, ushered in by Ideals. It can so it should: Potential implies Perfection.
People are wrong because they hold PARTICULAR views and perspectives, opinions, that have no intent of becoming Universal, or Synthesizing with all the other opinions and perspectives in the world. Synthesis, therefore, is the gateway to Absolute Truth: The Truth is not A truth but All truths in One. If we are to synthesize without contradiction, though, we all must be in the same thinking process, starting at the base and working our way up to more agreements. If you disagree, it’s just a sign that you’re not done synthesizing yet. I seem so elitist because I’ve already synthesized plenty of world views through my years of study, but I encourage others to do the same; i’m sure that if you try to find Absolute Truth and Perfection, you will find the same patterns and themes that i have. But i always negate the views that are themselves already negative: like nihilism, apathy, ignorance, faith, otherness, etc – all these things negate the genuine things that ought to be ideally natural, like Reason (we act for reasons, so when “duty” and “faith” are introduced, demanding that someone act for the sake of “duty”, for the sake of “society”, or to skip reasons and assume “faithfully”, there is no more room to synthesize: you cannot, for instance, synthesize Existence with nothingness, Good with evil, or Perfect with imperfect; they are purely Positive notions. I find myself in constant service of refuting a refutation.
|
|
| Joshua
@dalniente, Heh, i’ve been doing that with my new cat since summer and people always note how intelligent he is, always observing things with a puzzled look on his face, quietly inspecting properties. I feel like i’m making him Sapient, lol.
|
|
| Ray Butler
@sapienite, That is all someone needs to synthesise, they do not need to fully understand they just have to”feel” the “spirit” of the sentiment or idea.
I only have two problems with your ideas 1) You seem to be trying to explain something that each of us can only realize, never be taught. 2) It seems so complex, I like to think that anything worth knowing is knowable by everyone, this kinda deters people away from exploring further if they do not get it, because they figure if it is that complex then they will never understand, may as well quit philosophy all together.
I really like your work and I think there is a market for it so keep it up, it is clearly your passion so you can just do the best you can at what you are good at. I personally am constantly altering my understanding to adapt to new understanding, this tells me I am not finished yet, but one of my passions is in this growth, I don’t like the idea of wanting to explore a new land only to find out that a detailed map already exists. That is my ego at work, so don’t take it personally.
|
|
| Joshua
Synthesis is dialectical, not aesthetic; it does not require feeling in Spirit to find Truth, in fact, that often distracts us from it. The dialectic concerns thinking, not feeling, so synthesis is a matter of positing the positives and negating the negatives in every thesis.
If people doubt themselves and give up Philosophy, they deserve it.
The Truth may have been found by someone, but if that discouraged anyone from then finding it as well, then Truth has no benefit. I not only believe in Truth, but i Know that it’s attainable by every Rational and Creative Soul (self-consciousness). For this, my book starts at ignorance and works its way up; readers, thus, become one with the thought process and develop Understanding as one. Reason Unifies our Understanding, and for that, Knowledge is Universal, or Truth is attainable.
|
|
| Ray Butler
@sapienite, Is your book published? I may be interested. If it is so comprehensive then really all we can do here is discuss until you have re-written it. Maybe I should look at your book before I can really be constructive in this discussion.
|
|
| Joshua
My book is not published yet. As i’ve said, I wanted to see how people may react to one particular piece of it, so i put in a small excerpt. My responses simply come out of defense and interest: i like a good argument. I respect your motives and philosophy: at least you have one, unlike the vast majority. I learned or re-freshed a few views about things by this conversation alone, so thank you.
|
