But the bluffer doesn't think it's an "error." The bluffer is strategizing.
That there's God!
Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
But the bluffer doesn't think it's an "error." The bluffer is strategizing.
That there's God!
And yet you are noticing this: and you do not find it absurd. Or do you?
Yes, it seems absurd to hold a given metaphysical position, and so something becomes of this, such as a feeling of liberation from any, as only 'neutral' and paradoxical then remain as options. I was wondering what your take was, along with any extensions pro or con to the positions, such as, for example, that we observe the simpler ever combining and making for the more complex, which I forgot to put, or whatever you have on the subject.
We should at least try to bolster the claim that all positions are absurd before taking it as a true proposition. If we can't, then I suppose we still arrive at the same state of all being undecidable, and are again freed of it to go about our business of being with whatever meaning we wish to make out of it via our own probability estimates, personality, learnings, associations, and whatnot.
A good conclusion shown. Existence must then always precede the underlying essence in importance, for it would seem that essence cannot be known outright, any choice truly arbitrary since it is only of personal leanings.
Only if Reality is impersonal.
That's a part of the undecidable, as well, but we do know we are in existence, and no matter how we like or not that we have been thrust into it, we must still deal with it when and if we continue in it.
Let us not forget, though, that we are the cosmos itself come to life, of its ingredients, for what that's worth.
Of course, and you could substitute "the beauty of nature" with anything. It's a given. It seemed to me, though, that you were singling it out.
Repeating for LG:
So, instead of empiricism, what are you suggesting as a viable alternative?
So, instead of empiricism, what are you suggesting as a viable alternative?
Who is "we"?
a viable alternative to empiricism to what?
understanding the context of the universe?
We're not talking about pyrite mining and the like.
We're talking about the possible fundamental philosophical outlooks on life and everything.
I would suggest understanding through diligent observation of that which deludes our perception of reality (the mind). There is much for one to realize if one makes a point to notice, though much of such wisdom cannot be comprehended by the accounts of others, but only through the direct experience of thought (and realization).
I suppose this would fall along the lines of innatism, or perhaps psychological nativism if one were looking for a more scientific approach.
Last edited:
Unless this practice of diligent observation toward realization is embedded into the context of associating with fellow practitioners (at least some of whom have attained higher stages of realization and can thus serve as teachers), then such solitary practice poses many pitfalls - from sentimentalism to not making any progress.
then I guess we can turf empiricism/reductionist view in the bin from the outset since hardly anyone approaches the problems of philosophical outlooks or validates their own or critiques that of others in terms of atoms, chemicals, compounds and such.
But what do you propose is a viable alternative to empiricism?
All of modern Western science, including psychology, is in some way based in empiricism.
Us humans, and all species of life.
May I again suggest understanding through experience (not necessarily sensory experience)? This goes against the linearity and objectivity that is inherent in a society built around a phonetic alphabet (and the correlative stress on the sense of sight), but there is much to be realized that cannot be accurately perceived from words on paper. Is this a good reason to dismiss such realizations? What if such realizations are within the reach of everybody?
Marshall McLuhan had something to say about it (emphasis mine):
Last edited: