dean, nothing personal, but you need to work on your syntax nt

Posted by Joe on June 07, 2001 at 16:05:48:

In Reply to: everyone should learn philosophy posted by dean on June 07, 2001 at 15:28:25:

: ohilosophy is great because it doesn't tell you what to think but how to think,and every individual gets to write his own philosophy.wether we claim to be or not we're all philosophers,we all have some ideology.in a sense that's what all the types are a common philosophy,attitude, or perception.that's why i say one of the greatest battles in life is the balance between knowing what is true and what to believe in(having a philosophy)and forgetting all truths opening your mind without judgement and seeing the world for the first time like a child.on one end to much gives you close minded intolerance and on the other naive convictionless pollitical correctness.back in the day philosophy,theology,science,morality were one in the same.that's the way it is for me science,art,morality,and philosophy are all intertwined and a kind of worship and love of life and reality.the more you love somthing the more you want to know it and completely imerse yourself in it.what better use of life than to study life.

: now,bart the philosophy you described minus the theological parts sounds just like existentialism but without the moral assumptions.you say i think therefore i am is wrong it should be i perceive therefore i am then go on to say that memory and thought are made of perseptions.so it's both true and untrue,ok i can see that.so theirs the raw sensation closely akin to perseption but the perceiver has a self component.then their's thought which is linked to perception because it's just made from perceptions.all memory is captured perception,all thought the reorginization of memories,all thought is perception the more fundimental of the two.so if perception is partly defined by sensation and thought can we then say that it only exist in reference between the two.so similar to object relations theory,and the idea of illusions in buddhism the self(ego) exist in referance between(objects) perceptions and thoughts(interpritation).the other problem i have with seperating perception and thought is does perception even make sense without self awareness,and doesn't self awareness require thought and memory.when you aware of your self and ask who am i don't you need a memory for reference.when you perceive your self perceiving don't you need a memory to seperate you from sensation. i beleive computers sense in a mechanical way as in reacting to stimulai but they're not sentient.i'm not sure if computation is the same as thought i'm inclined to say no.the chicken and the egg.which came first thought or perception or are they differant sides of the same coin.for general purposes"cogito ergo sum"still works fine for me.

: so if your entire reality were made of perceptions that didn't necisarily reflect the world they came from how can we know anyhting for certain.it's the classic is the red you see the red i see.if a tree falls in the woods and no one was around to hear it, does it make a sound?no.a sound exists in minds,but it will make a vibration,supposedly.sounds and colors are all mental constructs,interpritations of sensations,it's all just vibrations and radiation,some you can't see or hear but they exist,supposedly.but what if all the universe were just imaginary sensations like a dream within a dream,if it were all internaly consistant how would you ever know the differance?that's kinda what the matrix touches on.another good one is ghost in a shell.

: about philosophy in general,
: you might like zen it sounds a whole lot like western existentialism in philosophy but has a more enneagram like self improvement aspect.i also like tao,but i like the philisophical not theological side of both.i think confucious was the first popular communist and i hate communism it's evil,for one reason it goes against evolution"only the strong survive"and nature so must surely fail.nietzche was brilliant but mad.i think that western philosophy is for whatever reason more varied.i think youdlike sacrates,and the sylogisms of aristotle.their both reductionist,and soemwhat flawed but i think you love their debate technique.

: so anyway most of what you stated makes fine sense and parellels my own interpritation alot,but i've gotten away from thinking i think theirfor i am(or any variation on that)because as a 5 i think it only adds to the detachment attitude of an outside observer of life and not an active particpant.that's why i made the connection between that statement and averice,i think averice like the other sins is more broad a range of traits than just reducing needs,and hording resources,it's also the stingyness of heart and mind by detachment.i still believe the basic idea but i'm more than a ghost inside a machine.so did i miss any major points you were trying to convey?

Follow Ups:

• especially how to use punctuation. Your posts are hard to read Rhonda 02:02:41 06/08/01 (1)
  • sorry above is an NT message Rhonda 02:03:28 06/08/01 (0)

Post a Followup