a new understanding of today, time and space.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:05 pm

Peter Kropotkin: a plane figure with three sides and three angles...…..

what am I?

K: can you figure out what a plane figure with three sides and three angles
is, without, without resorting to experience?.......

Now some may say, I learned that in school and that is using experience
to find out what my riddle is..... without using any experience, can you
discover what my riddle is?

the answer is no... you cannot figure out what my riddle is without
a resort to experience....... experience of some sort or another......

If a priori understanding was actually possible, then we wouldn't need to
teach children in school what items such as....hint, hint, squares and circles
and ..... what triangles are...... we spend a great deal in childhood playing
with toys that represent the various shapes that exists..
if we had a priori understanding of the world, that wouldn't be necessary......

we learn from teaching and experience how to order the universe
and what morals are and the shape of objects and that 1 + 1 = 2......
all matters we learn from experience......

Kant claimed that we have an innate group of categories that
allow us to understand reality... the problem lies with some
understanding from where do the "innate categories" come from?

we are born with innate categories but we aren't born with
an innate understand of math or english or shapes or space/time....

so where does this innate catagories come from?

it has to come from somewhere, so where?

answer me this and I shall die a happy man........

answer me this and I shall become a convert to Kantism........

where do innate catagories come from?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:22 pm

as I read and attempt to make sense of Kant,
I wonder a couple of things...… first of all,
what does this whole idea of Kant's really mean for
the human problem of existence...………..

yes, Kant was aiming as all philosophers aim for, which
is certainty and order...……...but I am old and I have reason to
suspect this need for certainty...….

the most dangerious people on planet earth are the ones who
are "certain" that this is so or that is true.........
religious fanatics are "certain" that there is a god and that
there is heaven and the entire point of existence is to reach
heaven and they are certain...........

certainty leads people to ignore logic, understanding, compassion,
intelligence............ why have any of those things if you are certain?

IQ45 is certain he is right and acts upon that certainty... to the clear
and obvious detriment of America.........he is unable to see the damage
he is doing because he is "certain" what he is doing is right.... he is simply
the most visible and obvious candidate of someone who is "certain" and
doing incredible damage to us as a country............

being absolutely certain allows one to act as if it doesn't matter
what the cost are, because you are certain and to be certain means
to be right...…. and if you are right, then the cost is negligible because
you aren't paying the cost...… someone else is.... and that is the problem with
being certain..... the cost is almost always being born by someone else,
not the person who is certain...…….

in my ideal world, we would have no certainty, no reason to be
certain because everything is in doubt and when people are in doubt,
they act more slowly and with care and caution..... unlike those who are certain...…

having doubt or uncertainty doesn't mean less will happen or
that we will become timid.... no, it just means that we
won't act stupidly because we aren't so certain that we are right...….

so in regards to philosophy, I reject the object of philosophy
as being a search for certainty...………..the object of philosophy
is to gain the truth or to find one's place in the universe or to
at least understand the questions of life... and none of these have
anything to do with certainty or finding certainty...…

the search for certainty is the search for a need to be filled, but
that need to be certain leads one to make grave and dangerous
mistakes...………… better to do without
certainty then to have certainty and think you have all the answers....
and when you act with certainty, others pay the price for your
"certainty".

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:48 pm

we must accept the fact that we are subject to the same
"laws"/ "rules" that govern planets, stars, biological matter,
space/time.........

they have their set rules, for example, light must travel at a
certain speed and pig cannot grow wings and we cannot overcome
gravity and fly with just our arms flapping......

are their exceptions to the rules/laws of nature? of course, but
and this is important, to violate those rules means that violation undermines
the stability or order of nature..........order here means the order needed to
maintain a stable system, which is what we are talking about.... if we violate
the rules, we threaten the stability of the system in question........

we can violate the rules/laws of society, but we threaten the stability
of society.... if planets can move outside of their orbits, they threaten
the stability of the solar system they reside in.......

the rules/laws exist to allow the system to maintain order in which it
needs to maintain its stability........ and allows it to keep functioning.....

so, when Kant propose a rule/ law that says, what if we made this law universal,
so, he says,

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity both in your own
person and in the person of all others, never as a means only but as an end"

now the real question becomes, does this "law/rule" allow the system,
the social system to continue to function, does it allow the system to
to remain stable? and if the answer is yes, then it is a good rule/law.....

Kant treats moral issues as part of "duty"..... it is your duty to
act in such a way as to treat humanity as a end, not as an means.....

a duty.................. where would this idea of duty come from?
duty is cold and inhuman and heartless...…… for following duty
and only duty, it allows much of the inhumanity of the day.....

the I.C.E agent who separates a child from his family isn't heartless
or insensitive, no, he is just following his duty...…
a guard at a concentration camp sending Jews to their death isn't
heartless or insensitive, nope, he is just following his duty...….

at what point does becoming responsible for ones actions,
override duty.... at what point does the concentration camp
guard becomes responsible for his actions even if he was doing his
duty...…………..so at some point, following one's duty can lead one
to commit acts of treason or acts against humanity...….

so we might be able to accept Kant's individual idea's like
treating humanity as an ends, not an means,
we cannot follow Kant and make morality as a matter
of duty because in following duty, we can commit actions
against humanity and by claiming duty, we can escape
our responsibility for said acts...……….

following duty cannot allow us to be no longer accountable
for our actions...……………… a concentration guard is accountable,
is responsible for his actions of marching the Jews to their death,
regardless of their "duty"...……

so, we reject Kant and his belief that morality is an act of duty...…

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:37 pm

Who am I?

the way we self identify suggest that we don't know "who we are"?

for example, I might self identify as a liberal or a democrat
or as an American...….but, those self identification
aren't really who I am, they are what I believe.... I for example,
being a liberal means I am telling you what political philosophy
I follow, or being a democrat means I am telling you what political
party I follow or identify with...…….I am an American not by choice,
but because I was born on this side of a line and not on the other side
of a line...…….being an American is about an accidental trait like
being white or being male.. I didn't choose them... they were accidents
of my birth...…. just as being born handicap..... it choose me, I didn't choose it.....

we self identify with our accidental traits, white, male, American.....
that can't really be who we are if they are accidents of who we are...…
something that happened without any choice on our part...….

as far as being liberal or being democrat, it means we are identifying
with a ism, an ideology...……. we identify with an ism, that doesn't
mean that is who we are, that is merely an ism we believe in, not who
we are...………… so this question of who we are, who am I, is really
a question that we don't even understand because we
identify ourselves with accidental traits or ism's, that have nothing
to do with us personally, they are just things we believe in...……….
but that isn't who we are, is it? perhaps that is exactly who we are....
we are simple a collection of the things we believe in, accidental traits
and ism/ideologies that make up, who we are...…..

there is not there, there.... there is no thing I can point to
and say, that is who I am...………………… it is simply a
collection of beliefs and accidental traits that make up the
human being...….we are those, the who we are, is the collection
of beliefs and accidental traits...…… that is who we are...…….

perhaps...….perhaps not...… maybe, just maybe Hume was right...…

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:48 pm

Now Hume thought there was no such thing as a personality..
Who am I, was really just a series of reactions to sensations,
no real "I", just a rapid series of reactions to stimuli with no central
coordination or central place for the "I"....and if you see people respond
to the question, Who are you? with responses like I am an American or
I am white, answers that are about the accidental properties or traits
we are..... but this doesn't understand or answer the question,

Who am I? Who am I, isn't about being white or being an American,
it is about, who we are...…...do I read, yes, but that isn't who I am,
do I study philosophy, yes, but that isn't who I am

think of the question, who am I...……..and put the answers into
a set theory of math...… I read, that gets me into a subset of readers,
I study philosophy and that gets me into another subset...…

I am male and that gets me into a subset of being male or
the subset of being white or the subset of having brown hair.....

then within the circles of the various subsets, you get circle after
circle after circle with me being in the middle of all of those subsets....

but is that really who I am? just a listing of various accidental
traits? traits I had no choice over like being white or being born American?

how about traits, wait a minute, should I call my choices like being
religious a trait? If I choose to believe in god, is that a trait or is that
something else? but do I believe in god because of my childhood
indoctrinations which means I didn't get to choose again, I was trained
to believe in god and that isn't choice...…….. it was accidental once again.....
so we cannot admit certain traits to being mine and mine alone if the
are the result of being childhood indoctrinations like being an American
means being indoctrinated into capitalism or democracy from childhood.....
but the reality is that if I don't choose an ism or an ideology, but was
indoctrinated into them from childhood, that those beliefs of capitalism
and democracy, they too are accidental and thus subject to be called
traits...…. but what if I choose to be something, what if I chose
to believe in god, not as an accidental traits from childhood indoctrinations,
but from an actual understanding of what it means to be religious???????

something that is no longer an accidental trait, but being a choice, freely done....
is that who I am? freely made choices about what I believe in..... that still
tell me about my choices, not who I am...………..let me think about this for
a moment...……… ummmmmmm, I read a lot of philosophy books and I think
and I study philosophy, that seems to paint a picture of someone who is
rational, someone who thinks, someone who resolves problems with thought,
not just feelings..... that does tell us something about who I am.....

I am a rationalist, someone who thinks and that does tell us something
about me, who I am...……. that thinking is not a accidental trait or
something I was indoctrinated with, because how we think is not a function
of being indoctrinated...… it is a choice we make as to how we respond to
the world and the sensations we get from our senses, eyes, ears, nose, touch,
tongue...……..

who am I?

I am someone who thinks...….

we have reduced our question into the basic form of thought or
reacting emotionally, and I think...………

so one response to the question of who am I, is
the answer, I think...….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:06 am

we have a couple of reactions to make...….

in light of the good versus evil question...…
we understand "good" and "evil" as two distinct
and separate issues, but we understand that "good"
and "evil" are really just perspectives...…….

take the Holocaust, it has been classified as "evil" and yet,
and yet, was it? People did benefit from the removal of Jews
and communist and Gays into those concentration camps....
People were able to get better jobs, make more money,
have a better house because the Jews were taken away...
from this standpoint, the removal of people into concentration camps
was not "evil".... it was good because it benefited people
and any event that was a benefit to people cannot be counted as
"evil"

but take the Jewish people or the communist or Gays that were transported
to concentration camps to die, it was "evil" nothing more, nothing less.....

so, is removal of people into concentration camps, "good" or "evil"?
depends on your viewpoint...….. but take an event and let us look at it.....

for example, a tree falls.... in one case the tree falls and it kills a lion
that was about to eat some people..... in another case, the tree fell
and killed some children.... now for some people, the tree falling and killing
the lion was a "good" thing and for some people the tree killing children is an
"evil" thing...…. depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

so, how is one to understand the tree falling?

you see the act, the tree falls, you see the tree killing either the lion
or killing the children...…………. but you cannot make a judgment without
bringing in some other evidence...…….. for example, the visual image
of the tree falling doesn't allow one to make some moral judgement..
the fact the tree will kill one life form or the other life, still doesn't
allow some moral judgement..... to make a "moral judgement" one must
have facts outside the actions itself...…

to make this clear, let us take two similar emotions.....

let us say, that for me, to get a sexual thrill, I like watching two women,
now let us say, that for some person, raping and killing children, also
brings about a sexual thrill..... if we just judge it based on the
result that the actions have on us, we both get sexual thrills....if that
is the criteria, then it doesn't matter what the action we take to reach
the sexual thrill.... the point is to have the sexual thrill...……….
not how we got the sexual thrill...………….

but to justify either action, we must go beyond the act of causing
the sexual thrill...…. It can be argued that my looking at two women
having sex is "less" a danger then some person raping and killing children...…
but we have to go beyond the action, go beyond the sexual thrill and
bring in outside reasons for our actions to be "judge" right or wrong...…..

Now one may object to both actions equally, as watching two women
debases and demean and destroys what women are and raping and killing
children destroys lives that had no choice of any kind...……….

in other words, the path to understanding the "rightness" or "wrongness"
of any action lies outside of the action itself.... you cannot call an action
"right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil" based on just the actions themselves.....

any explanations must come from outside of the actions...…………

the criteria for judging "right" from "wrong" doesn't come from the action itself,
the criteria comes from some outside source..... society cannot function if we allow
people to rape and kill children but society can and does function if we allow
men (or women) for that matter to watch two women have sex...…..

and we can create other reasons for accepting one action or another, but
those reasons come from outside of the actions itself....

so the standard we might use to judge such matters arise from outside of
the actions because we cannot know from an action itself if it is "good"
or "evil" until we take some inventory of the event and note the pluses
or minus of any given event...……. it is after the fact that we decide
if an event is "good" or "evil" or simply just neutral...…………..
and we use criteria outside of or beyond the event itself...……..

So "good" and "evil" require some analysis, some full understanding
of the event and its aftermath before we can consider an event to
be "good" or "evil"...…………

or said another way, understanding "good" and "evil" requires some
perspective and a full accounting before we can make some declaration
to the value of the words "good" or "evil" and apply the words "good" and "evil" to
any action...…..

to understand "good" and "evil" requires a judgement to be made...
and we must understand the basis of that judgement for the
judgement to have any value...…………..

and the judgement requires an explanation outside of the event
and outside of some personal moral understanding...…………

is "good' and is "evil" "subjective"?

the problem with that, is the fact that we must bring in outside
evidence to "correctly" understand any judgment we might make...….

we cannot properly understand an event until we use some outside
criteria and not just judge the event by itself..... but we run into
another problem, which outside criteria should we use?

But Kropotkin, you haven't answered anything, you haven't solved
anything.... you just have more questions...…….. yep...…….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:00 pm

so if we understand this whole question about "good" and "evil" correctly,
then to be able to judge something being "good" or "evil", we must resort
to some outside the event criteria...…. in other words, we see an event,
a tree falling and we cannot judge the moral implications until we've done
a complete analysis of the event...…..

ummmmmm, ok, we have our childhood indoctrinations,
the myths, biases, prejudices and superstitions that we are taught
from birth...…………… we take these indoctrinations and accept them as is....
we are taught that there is a god or that America is the greatest country
on earth.. prejudices really... and because we haven't done as Nietzsche
has suggested which is.. "to have the courage for an attack upon our convictions"
we just simply accept our convictions, the myths and biases and prejudices
and superstitions of our indoctrinations as the basis for our understanding
of the universe, of reality...…

when we look to outside evidence to understand if something is "good" or "evil",
we resort to our convictions, which are nothing more then the myths and bias
and ism's and prejudices of our childhood indoctrinations...………..

the very evidence we use to understand if something is "good" or "evil" is itself
bias and prejudice and of superstitions...………..

that outside criteria we use to understand if something is "good" or "evil"
is nothing more than the biases we are used to since we have had them
since childhood...…."good" and "evil" is nothing more then the
myths and biases and prejudices and superstitions of our childhood
indoctrinations...…………

so how are to know what is really and truly "good" or "evil"?

by overcoming our myths, habits, bias, prejudice, superstitions,
and ism's that we were indoctrinated with as children...…

that is the only sure path to our becoming aware of what is truly
"good" or "evil"...…….............

If a man declares an event to be "evil" what he really means is,
that is an bias I was indoctrinated with as a child and I never outgrew it
because I never overcame it.........................

what we call "good" and "evil" are simply childhood indoctrinations
that we haven't the courage to overcome.............

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:52 pm

how do we actually understand things?


let us take a previous example, a tree falls down...….

how would a child who hasn't been indoctrinated understand
a tree falling down?

it becomes a magical event...….. the child does not and can not understand the
cause of events required to have a tree fall down...………

if you don't have some causal understanding of an event, it becomes
magical...…..

another example is a elevator..... from a child perspective, a door
opens up and then people walk out... and the elevator is empty...the door closes....
then a few moments later, the door reopens with more people in it...….
wow...… a magic event where a door opens up and an empty box/ room,
becomes full again with people who then walk out and over and over again....
we know that the elevator goes from floor to floor picking up people...
but a child doesn't know that...….. and we have to explain to the child the
"trick" of the elevator...….. it no longer becomes a magic event...….

but for a child to understand, they must be taught the causal relationship
of the event, the elevator and how it moves from floor to floor....
until the child understand it is the elevator that moves from floor to floor,
the child won't understand how it picks up people...………. from the child's
standpoint, most of life seems to be magic..... and from their perspective, it
is...………… because they don't have the causal understanding of reality...……..

which is why Kant is wrong in his understanding of the universe being in
categories...…………… we don't understand the universe that way until
we are taught the categories and what the categories are for...…..

in other words, we learn from experience what the categories are and
how they are used...……….. not from some innate sense of the categories...…

we learn what motion is from people describing motion or we learn motion
from actually doing motion... from experience.... we learn what space
is from either a description or from experience, not from some innate
category because the category itself must be furnished from experienced.....

when we are adults and we have categories, learned from cold hard experience,
we can label or categorize or time or weigh matter or experiences and put
them into a category learned from experience...………. not an innate idea...…


the category of hot things we learned from experiencing hot things
and the category of hard things we learned from experincing hard things.....
and time and space from our ever present existence in space and time.......

does a fish understand it is in water? no, it is just the enviroment
that the fish has existed in all its life and it doesn't know or understand
any other enviroment... space and time are simply the enviroment we
have existed in all our lives.........and thus we don't need to have an "innate"
or a category of space/time.... it already exists and has all our lives......

what we fail to understand is the human being has existed within
a enviroment all of our lives... it is a part of us......we no more think
of the sun as being a star as we do of earth being a planet..........
it just is and has been all of our lives... it doesn't need a category...

oxygen was discovered in 1772... no one bothered to look for it because
it never occurred to anyone.... because we have always have had
oxygen... it is part of the enviroment.... why look for something that
is ever present..... the question of space/time is the same thing....
it is always there..... ever present......

to create categories for our understanding is to miss the entire
point of childhood where we learn from birth, such things space/time/ matter
events/causal relationships and we learn such things from experience
and from people's explanation of what happened and why..........


Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:36 pm

we are imperfect people living in an imperfect world...…….

and all our work is meant to rise above our imperfectness
or the world's imperfectness, or perhaps both...…..

Leibnez is wrong in thinking that this is "the best of all worlds"

it is not perfection we struggle against.... it is the opposite,
imperfection...…………… you don't struggle against perfection,
you emulate it, you copy it, you steal it..... you don't struggle
against it...……………..

but what imperfection do we struggle against exactly?

the world/nature isn't perfect or imperfect, it just is...
Nature is neutral.... it doesn't give a shit about us.....
negative or positive...……….

what is imperfect is us...….. and our response to nature...……
we have anthropomorphize nature to our detriment in understanding
the world/nature...……….

so how do we make ourselves perfect? we don't...….

we simply begin to understand/ become aware of our imperfection...…

from what stems out imperfection? By relying on our childhood
indoctrinations, we have a false understanding of the world and
who we are...… if we overcome those childhood indoctrinations,
habits, myths, prejudices and superstitions, we will have a better
understanding of who we are and what is possible...………

no longer will we be imperfect because our imperfections is a result
of our false understanding of the world...………..create by the childhood
indoctrinations...…..

childhood indoctrinations create a bad fit in our adulthood, for they
lead us to make false and erroneous conclusions about who we are and why
we are here and what is possible...……………..

it is not the world/universe/nature that is imperfect but the way we
we look at the world that is the problem... fix how we look at the world
and the "imperfection" that is, is no more...……………. the problem is us,
not the world...……the imperfection is us, not the world

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:01 pm

love..... one of the basic emotions of life and for
many, one of the reasons to remain alive... love is the
reason for existence...………..

so how would you describe love?

would you use scientific terms? would you use
philosophical terms? No, I don't see that working out well....

so how would one describe love......

"How do I love thee? let me count the way.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
my soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

for the ends of being and ideal grace.

I love thee to the level of every day's
most quiet need, by sun and candlelight

I love thee freely, as men strive for right...

I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.

I love thee with the passion put to use
in my old griefs, and with my
childhood's faith....

I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
with my lost saints, I love thee with the breath,
smiles, tears, all my life; and, if god choose,
I shall love thee better after death...….

Elizabeth Barret Browning...…..

you cannot clearly and distinctly describe love with science or philosophy
or math or history.... you need the right words to describe love and
poetry and songs do have the right words to describe a personal event
like love...….but you cannot describe philosophy with words of love..
and you cannot describe history with mathematical formula's...…

what we need is to understand that to describe something, we need the
right words to be able to describe that something......and we cannot use
science to describe love or love to describe science...……………..

much of our current failure arises because we are using the wrong words
to describe events and feelings and our life...…….

but more of interest is this, why don't we have a current theory of
"aesthetics"? what is art and what is it meaning for us? what is beauty
and what does beauty mean to us? the problem of "aesthetics"
is one that we need to sort out...………. but we don't know or care
what is beauty or what it means to us...…. ask yourself, why?

for over 200 years "aesthetics" was a major problem in philosophy and
today, we have even forgotten what "aesthetics" is..... why?

find a poem, read it, think about it...….. try to understand what it means
and what it says to you...……………… most people would consider that a waste
of time.... there is no reason for us to ever think about or understand poems
or literature or great art..... but why? understanding art was
one of the Greek's great pleasure... they created great art in response to
what they saw or felt within their reality...………… why don't we create
art in response to our reality, to what we see in the universe?

perhaps the failure of modernity lies in it forgetting how important
art is and pursuit of beauty is to us...……...

we lost something very important when we gave up our engagement with
art and beauty and began to pursue money/profits/ upwardly success...….

we lost part of our soul...…… and this is reflected in the emptiness of
our time...…………… what is art to you?

and begin to understand the emptiness of your soul because you have forgotten
what it means to pursue beauty instead of money...…….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:06 pm

it is not the world/universe/nature that is imperfect but the way we
we look at the world that is the problem... fix how we look at the world
and the "imperfection" that is, is no more...……………. the problem is us,
not the world...……the imperfection is us, not the world


You and I are pretty much in sync regarding most political issues: leftist, liberal, progressive.

But the manner in which you seem to embrace them appears [to me] more in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of a "moral objectivist". Whereas my own commitment is considerably more tenuous...more in the way of an existential contraption, a bunch of "political prejudices" derived largely from the particular life that I lived.

In other words....

Hindus
Buddhists
monarchists
populists
nationalists
liberals
conservatives
Marxists
fascists
Nazis
libertarians
anarchists
socialists
capitalists
Objectivists
Christians


And on and on and on.

Which of these folks would not argue much the same thing that you do?

Perfection may or may not exist, but the closest our own species can come to it is to think like they do.

And that just seems more about embracing one or another psychological foundation to embed "I" in.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27377
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:22 pm

K: it is not the world/universe/nature that is imperfect but the way we
we look at the world that is the problem... fix how we look at the world
and the "imperfection" that is, is no more...……………. the problem is us,
not the world...……the imperfection is us, not the world"

I: You and I are pretty much in sync regarding most political issues: leftist, liberal, progressive.

But the manner in which you seem to embrace them appears [to me] more in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of a "moral objectivist". Whereas my own commitment is considerably more tenuous...more in the way of an existential contraption, a bunch of "political prejudices" derived largely from the particular life that I lived.

In other words....

Hindus
Buddhists
monarchists
populists
nationalists
liberals
conservatives
Marxists
fascists
Nazis
libertarians
anarchists
socialists
capitalists
Objectivists
Christians


And on and on and on.

Which of these folks would not argue much the same thing that you do?

Perfection may or may not exist, but the closest our own species can come to it is to think like they do.

And that just seems more about embracing one or another psychological foundation to embed "I" in.[/quote]


K: it is always a pleasure to hear from you.....there is much misunderstanding
about my "method" and I shall take a moment to clarify...….

there are, so far, two ways to understand things, one is the universal to
the particulars and the other way is to go from the particular to the universal...
the misunderstanding in my case is although I do have a certain "political"
viewpoint and that I go from the universal to the particular there, this
is philosophy and I go from the particular to the universal in philosophy...…

now one method people use is to begin with a universal, I am a "Hindu",
to use one of your examples, and argue from the universal, "Hindu"
to the particulars to promote or to encourage people to understand
what it means to be 'Hindu" or to even encourage people to become "Hindu",
the universal to the particulars.....but my "philosophical works" do not go
from the universal to the particular because I don't have a universal
philosophical standpoint to engage from.....I don't have a universal
philosophical standpoint...….whereas I do have a political or religious
universal standpoint...…..I don't argue philosophical that my position
is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same
because I don't have a philosophical position to argue from...………

don't mistake my political or religious viewpoints as a means to influence
my philosophical viewpoints... they don't...…….

what I am doing is simply trying to take some particulars and then
use those particulars to create a philosophical position....
go from the particular to the universal...………..

to call me an "objectivist" from a political or religious standpoint,
may or may not be correct, but I have no set philosophical standpoint
from which to call me an "objectivist"...……….

I am simply trying to gather the evidence to make some sort of
judgement about the human condition... to try to discover
what is the human problem and how do we solve this
problem of existence...………...and I am now leaning toward
some sort of embrace with art as a means toward our understanding
the problem of human existence...………...but I could easily be wrong...….
or not...……………..

my positions are simply just questions attempting to create some meaning
in my life and perhaps, perhaps in yours or someone else life.... I simply report
my finding about the human condition... I state the problem of existence
and I try to understand the solution, if any, to this vexing problem...…….

it has been my experience, that quite often in searching for answers to
problems that having a fixed, set position prevents any hope to find
answers to the questions...………..perhaps the solution to the question of
existence is found in being "Hindu" or "liberal" or "fascist" but I doubt it.....

I am, in the worn out cliché, attempting to "think outside of the box"...…..

I may succeed or I may fail...……. but I don't believe that taking a set
philosophical position will allow me to solve the question of human existence...…

but in any case, I shall continue to search and ask questions about
what I see as the fundamental problem of our age,
"the problem of human existence" …………………………………………..

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:01 pm

in the question of human existence,
we have Kant's three question....

"All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical combine
in three questions,

1. What can I know?
2. What ought I to do
3. what may I hope?

Critique of Pure Reason....

in which Kant tries to understand the first question, What can I know?

but what is missed is the fact although Kant phrases this as personal questions,
they can really also exists as sociality questions....

1. What can we know?
2. What ought we to do?
3. what may we hope?

and the questions still make perfect sense
and thus we begin...........

we are not solitary creatures.... we are social creatures,
we exists within a group, social context....

"for no man is an island"

no matter how hard he tries.....

I need you and you need me.. simple as that.....

what can we know? we can know certain facts, but facts being facts
are not fixed in stone for all time, facts change..... are there really 8 million
people living in New York city, no, but that "fact" gives us a sense of the number
of people living in NY, not the actual true number because we can never actually know
how many people really do live in NY because of the incoming/outgoing movement
and births and deaths...…………...facts are temporary "truths" that are changeable...…
we can know "laws" like the "law of gravity" this "Law" is firmer then the idea of
"facts" given above...…. you can trust the "law of gravity" in a way you can't trust
"facts"...….but the "Laws" rules of our natural world are not absolute's...….
the idea that Laws of nature are completely fixed is shown to be wrong
by the one "fixed" law of nature, the speed of light...………

the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second..... and upon that "law"
Einstein based his theories upon but we know that a black hole gravity is so
strong that not even light can escape it.....light is trapped by gravity and thus
unable to move at 186,000 miles per second...……..thus the absolute "law" is
not absolute, it is a variable..... and that is important to know.....
because there may be a situation where gravity itself may not be
what we think it is and gravity is changed by some other force of nature...…

it is not the certainty of the universe we can build upon but
the uncertainty of the universe...…… we cannot be absolutely certain
about anything, we can we know? Perhaps nothing, perhaps all our knowledge
is really of a transitory nature...…. now granted some of that knowledge
may change in billions of years, but it is changeable, it just doesn't change
very fast...…….


our knowledge is not from an innate form as Plato or Kant thought.....
out knowledge comes from experience...….
now one might say, our knowledge of black holes certainly isn't from experience....
no, our knowledge of black holes isn't from experience but we have so little
"knowledge" of black holes, our knowledge is so limited as to be almost guesswork...………….

what can we know?

I may not know much and you may not know much but combined, we know more
then either of us individually might know...…. and so, we come to the real truth of
knowledge.... that collectively, we can know more then individually...….
what can I know? not much, but with your knowledge, I can know more....
and that is the real secret of knowledge.... it must be shared to be of use...….

individual knowledge is ok, but knowledge shared is better, far better...….

what can we know? a lot... if we share it...….

next, what can I/we ought to do?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:27 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:there are, so far, two ways to understand things, one is the universal to
the particulars and the other way is to go from the particular to the universal...
the misunderstanding in my case is although I do have a certain "political"
viewpoint and that I go from the universal to the particular there, this
is philosophy and I go from the particular to the universal in philosophy...…


Okay, let's bring this out into the world that we live in.

With America on the verge of sending abortion legislation back to the states [or straight back to the back alleys coast to coast] how is a universal/particular frame of mind applicable here?

Folks can "think up" -- define, deduce -- a universal morality into existence "in their heads". They then cram all of the particular pregnant women into it; or they can note the particular contexts that pregnant women might find themselves in and then reason from that to a universal moral law.

Either way though from my frame of mind, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don't go away.

I still construe both the "universal" assumptions and the assessments embedded in particular contexts as largely "existential contraptions".

Peter Kropotkin wrote: now one method people use is to begin with a universal, I am a "Hindu",
to use one of your examples, and argue from the universal, "Hindu"
to the particulars to promote or to encourage people to understand
what it means to be 'Hindu" or to even encourage people to become "Hindu",
the universal to the particulars.....but my "philosophical works" do not go
from the universal to the particular because I don't have a universal
philosophical standpoint to engage from.....I don't have a universal
philosophical standpoint...….whereas I do have a political or religious
universal standpoint...…..I don't argue philosophical that my position
is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same
because I don't have a philosophical position to argue from...


I'm still unclear then as to how this is applicable with respect to your own personal views on abortion rights.

When you note that...

"I don't argue philosophical[ly] that my position is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same because I don't have a philosophical position to argue from."

...my own reaction revolves around wanting to grasp the "position" from which you do come to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.

How do you not see your values here as just political prejudices [as "I" do] rooted in the manner in which I construe the nature of "self"/"identity" out in the is/ought world.

That's the part I am always most curious about. What goes on inside the head of those who are not down in the hole that I'm in when confronting conflicting goods in social, political and economic interactions.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: to call me an "objectivist" from a political or religious standpoint,
may or may not be correct, but I have no set philosophical standpoint
from which to call me an "objectivist"...……….


Then I am still completely baffled as to how you make this distinction. From my frame of mind an objectivist is someone who argues [either from a philosophical, religious or political perspective] that their value judgments regarding an issue like abortion reflect the most reasonable and virtuous frame of mind; and that in the best of all possible worlds "right makes might" would prevail.

And even to the extent they accept moderation, negotiation and compromise as the best of all possible worlds, they are still of the opinion that the world is divided between those who are "one of us" and those who are "one of them".

Peter Kropotkin wrote: I am simply trying to gather the evidence to make some sort of
judgement about the human condition... to try to discover
what is the human problem and how do we solve this
problem of existence...………...and I am now leaning toward
some sort of embrace with art as a means toward our understanding
the problem of human existence...………...but I could easily be wrong...….
or not...……………..


Yet any number of the objectivists above make the same claim. Except for the part where they might possibly be wrong.

And [from my frame of mind] once you go down this path you are basically embracing the idea that "we're right from our side and they're right from theirs".

But only as a particular political prejudice that "here and now" you are most comfortable with.

In other words, even though you think that your value judgments relating to an issue like abortion are probably the right ones, you admit that they may not be. And it is this assumption that makes is easier for you to accept that, with regard to democracy and the rule of law, "one of theirs" is acceptable. For now.

Someone like Trump becomes the problem here only to the extent that his followers are convinced that his own value judgments [re an issue like abortion] are objectivist [like theirs]. And not just part of the political game that he plays to stay in power.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: my positions are simply just questions attempting to create some meaning
in my life and perhaps, perhaps in yours or someone else life.... I simply report
my finding about the human condition... I state the problem of existence
and I try to understand the solution, if any, to this vexing problem...…….


As I see it though, a frame of mind like this may well be more in search of a psychological foundation upon which to anchor "I". Political values here then become more in sync with a psychological defense mechanism disguised as a moral or political commitment.

But I readily acknowledge that these relationships are [existentially] profoundly complex. I would never presume to suggest that "I" understand "you" here better than "you" understand "me". I just appear to be considerably more "fractured and fragmented". As I was with folks like karpel tunnel, phyllo, von rivers, gib, moreno, zinnat...


Peter Kropotkin wrote: I am, in the worn out cliché, attempting to "think outside of the box"...…..

I may succeed or I may fail...……. but I don't believe that taking a set
philosophical position will allow me to solve the question of human existence...…


Again, from my frame of mind, inside or outside the box, the search for solutions to "the problem of human existence" remains "for all practical purposes" an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least until someone is able to convince me that it doesn't have to be.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27377
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:24 pm

Peter Kropotkin:
there are, so far, two ways to understand things, one is the universal to
the particulars and the other way is to go from the particular to the universal...
the misunderstanding in my case is although I do have a certain "political"
viewpoint and that I go from the universal to the particular there, this
is philosophy and I go from the particular to the universal in philosophy...…

I: Okay, let's bring this out into the world that we live in.
With America on the verge of sending abortion legislation back to the states [or straight back to the back alleys coast to coast] how is a universal/particular frame of mind applicable here?

K: ok.....

I: Folks can "think up" -- define, deduce -- a universal morality into existence "in their heads". They then cram all of the particular pregnant women into it; or they can note the particular contexts that pregnant women might find themselves in and then reason from that to a universal moral law.
Either way though from my frame of mind, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don't go away.

K: Ok, here we have a distinction between you and me...…………...as a well known liberal,
I have well known idea's about Abortion...…… I see the matter of Abortion as being a
political or/a religious matter, but and this is important, not as a philosophical matter...….
as a political/religious matter we do run into dasein, conflicting goods and
political ecomony….but as a philosophical matter, we don't...….
I have never actually done a philosophical "study" of abortion......I don't
think it is possible because of the inherent conflict inside of the political/religious
mess in America...…….but I don't necessarily think that abortion for example,
must be done in a strict universal to particular or a particular to universal set...….
because of its nature, we simple take political/or religious understanding to
abortion...…..and you can run your usual arguments through the political/religious
context in regards to abortion.... but not philosophical arguments.....

I: I still construe both the "universal" assumptions and the assessments embedded in particular contexts as largely "existential contraptions".

K: now lies the problem..... at one time, you were an objectivist, you admit as much...
and you assume that people are "objectivist" because they don't see the world as you do....
but that is really is the result of how you view people, as you see them, not
necessarily as they see themselves.... if you start off thinking that everyone in
the world has sinned, then you will see everyone in the world sinning, but that
is not necessarily the truth, it is just you...…...your understanding of people dictates
your viewpoint of people.....

Peter Kropotkin: now one method people use is to begin with a universal, I am a "Hindu",
to use one of your examples, and argue from the universal, "Hindu"
to the particulars to promote or to encourage people to understand
what it means to be 'Hindu" or to even encourage people to become "Hindu",
the universal to the particulars.....but my "philosophical works" do not go
from the universal to the particular because I don't have a universal
philosophical standpoint to engage from.....I don't have a universal
philosophical standpoint...….whereas I do have a political or religious
universal standpoint...…..I don't argue philosophical that my position
is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same
because I don't have a philosophical position to argue from...

I: I'm still unclear then as to how this is applicable with respect to your own personal views on abortion rights.

K: once again, I don't view abortion philosophical, I view it politically/religiously...…
I classify abortion by my political/religious views...… so I don't attempt philosophy
in regards to abortion...………………..
you have to understand this or the rest doesn't matter....

I: When you note that...

K: "I don't argue philosophical[ly] that my position is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same because I don't have a philosophical position to argue from."

I: ...my own reaction revolves around wanting to grasp the "position" from which you do come to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.
How do you not see your values here as just political prejudices [as "I" do] rooted in the manner in which I construe the nature of "self"/"identity" out in the is/ought world.
That's the part I am always most curious about. What goes on inside the head of those who are not down in the hole that I'm in when confronting conflicting goods in social, political and economic interactions.

K: that idea conflicting goods in social, political and economics is not in my head,
it is your head... and it will help you understand things better if you can separate
out your thoughts from my thoughts.... I don't think like you do..... I care little
about those competing goods or "existential contraptions"..... it might work for
you, but it really doesn't work for me... I work off of different idea's and different
thoughts...… try to remember that...…. to be honest, I think the whole
conflicting goods and "existential contraptions" is really much, too much work.
I like to keep things simple...… my motto is "keep it simple stupid" or known
as the "Kiss" theory...….

Peter Kropotkin: to call me an "objectivist" from a political or religious standpoint,
may or may not be correct, but I have no set philosophical standpoint
from which to call me an "objectivist"...……….

I: Then I am still completely baffled as to how you make this distinction. From my frame of mind an objectivist is someone who argues [either from a philosophical, religious or political perspective] that their value judgments regarding an issue like abortion reflect the most reasonable and virtuous frame of mind; and that in the best of all possible worlds "right makes might" would prevail.

K: at the point of sounding repetitive, I think the problem lies with your thought
about "objectivist", it is a label and labels are rarely ever completely accurate or honest.....
a label is really nothing more then a prejudice or a habit to put upon people...….
remove the label, "objectivist" and try to see people another way...… but Kropotkin,
that is easier said then done...… yep...…...

I: And even to the extent they accept moderation, negotiation and compromise as the best of all possible worlds, they are still of the opinion that the world is divided between those who are "one of us" and those who are "one of them".

K: as a political/religious thought, yes, but not as a philosophical thought...….
and even as a political/religious thought, it is not very accurate.... who today believes
in moderation/negotiation, compromise? might as well be Diogenes...…..

Peter Kropotkin: I am simply trying to gather the evidence to make some sort of
judgement about the human condition... to try to discover
what is the human problem and how do we solve this
problem of existence...………...and I am now leaning toward
some sort of embrace with art as a means toward our understanding
the problem of human existence...………...but I could easily be wrong...….
or not...……………..

I: Yet any number of the objectivists above make the same claim. Except for the part where they might possibly be wrong.
And [from my frame of mind] once you go down this path you are basically embracing the idea that "we're right from our side and they're right from theirs".

K: and once again to be boring, the problem lies with your thought about objectivists....
I am talking about the matter philosophical, not politically or religious..... the problem of
existence is not a political or a religious matter, but a human matter... I don't care what
your political or religious thoughts are in regards to the question of the human problem,
that of human existence... it doesn't matter what your political or religious feelings
are.... the question/problem of human existence is not a day to day matter of politics
or religion, but of existence.....it is a metaphysical matter which I am investigating
right now and will be posting once I get a handle on it...….

I: But only as a particular political prejudice that "here and now" you are most comfortable with.
In other words, even though you think that your value judgments relating to an issue like abortion are probably the right ones, you admit that they may not be. And it is this assumption that makes is easier for you to accept that, with regard to democracy and the rule of law, "one of theirs" is acceptable. For now.

K: ok.....

I: Someone like Trump becomes the problem here only to the extent that his followers are convinced that his own value judgments [re an issue like abortion] are objectivist [like theirs]. And not just part of the political game that he plays to stay in power.

K: I object to IQ45 on political/ religious idea's, not necessarily philosophical ones...
I could object to him based on values, but I really think he is a danger to America
based on facts...….. as far as I can tell, he is completely wrong about every single
issue and wrong being from my understanding of competing goods, existential contraption,
political economy... the whole nine yards... he is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.....
but that is from a political/religious standpoint...…..like an good "objectivist"

Peter Kropotkin: my positions are simply just questions attempting to create some meaning
in my life and perhaps, perhaps in yours or someone else life.... I simply report
my finding about the human condition... I state the problem of existence
and I try to understand the solution, if any, to this vexing problem...…….[/quote]

I: As I see it though, a frame of mind like this may well be more in search of a psychological foundation upon which to anchor "I". Political values here then become more in sync with a psychological defense mechanism disguised as a moral or political commitment.
But I readily acknowledge that these relationships are [existentially] profoundly complex. I would never presume to suggest that "I" understand "you" here better than "you" understand "me". I just appear to be considerably more "fractured and fragmented". As I was with folks like karpel tunnel, phyllo, von rivers, gib, moreno, zinnat...

K: I am not a fan of trying to turn political/religious/ philosophical thought into psychological
thought....it just isn't a very good fit...….

Peter Kropotkin: I am, in the worn out cliché, attempting to "think outside of the box"...…..
I may succeed or I may fail...……. but I don't believe that taking a set
philosophical position will allow me to solve the question of human existence...…

I: Again, from my frame of mind, inside or outside the box, the search for solutions to "the problem of human existence" remains "for all practical purposes" an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least until someone is able to convince me that it doesn't have to be.

K: and that is where we part company, because I don't believe the search for the problem
of human existence must travel through dasein or conflicting goods or political economy....
there are other journeys to be made that don't require those "traits"
and to think that "for all practical purposes" the search for the solution to the human problem
must travel through those issues is to be as much an "objectivist" as anyone..........

we travel the path we travel, but we don't need to bring along the crap....
we can travel light and I like to travel light... so I try not to bring along
the crap of myths, habits, prejudices and superstitions that we either
are indoctrinated with or we create along the way...... sometimes I fail....

I believe your path of finding the truth through dasein, conflicting goods or political economy
or "existential contraption" is your way, your method of being an "objectivist"......
and from where I sit, I really, really, really don't care....... its your way, not mine......
I believe that many of the problem I find are really creations of my issues....
and I believe that finding the truth through these values of dasein, conflicting goods,
political economy and existential contraption is just not traveling light.....
but hay, what do I know? I am just muddling through this human existence....

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:12 pm

a general note..... I am wading deep, waist high in metaphysics...….
I have pages of handwriten notes about my readings in metaphyics......

now after my readings and thinking about those readings, I shall try
to connect metaphysics with Kant's thoughts, his three questions...
I am guessing that this is a reinventing the wheel type of exercise,
as philosophy classes most likely do this as standard procedure, but
hay, what the hell.....I have time......

anyway, Kant's three questions
1; what can we/I know?
2; what should we/I do?
3; what may we/I hope?

so how does the question of metaphysics involve in these three questions...
and of course, the issue becomes, what is metaphysics? and that is what I am
looking at.......what is metaphysics?

the original thought about metaphysics is Aristotle,
and they revolve around three questions, there is that three again....

One: what is the nature of being
two: what is the first cause of things
three: things that do not change

those are the traditional metaphysics questions....
but Kant, for example adding in some questions like
his well know thought about

"god, freedom and immortality"

so how does metaphysics give us an answer to the questions of
"god" freedom" "immortality" I would guess under the guise
of "things that do not change" from above.....

so in other words, I have waded into some very, very deep waters...….

but its ok, I can swim 8) ...…

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:49 pm

I: Folks can "think up" -- define, deduce -- a universal morality into existence "in their heads". They then cram all of the particular pregnant women into it; or they can note the particular contexts that pregnant women might find themselves in and then reason from that to a universal moral law.
Either way though from my frame of mind, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don't go away.


Peter Kropotkin wrote:Ok, here we have a distinction between you and me...…………...as a well known liberal,
I have well known idea's about Abortion...…… I see the matter of Abortion as being a
political or/a religious matter, but and this is important, not as a philosophical matter...….
as a political/religious matter we do run into dasein, conflicting goods and
political ecomony….but as a philosophical matter, we don't...….
I have never actually done a philosophical "study" of abortion......I don't
think it is possible because of the inherent conflict inside of the political/religious
mess in America...…….but I don't necessarily think that abortion for example,
must be done in a strict universal to particular or a particular to universal set...….
because of its nature, we simple take political/or religious understanding to
abortion...…..and you can run your usual arguments through the political/religious
context in regards to abortion.... but not philosophical arguments.....


This would seem to suggest then that ethicists and political philosophers [among others] have nothing to say about abortion.

And yet others would seem to suggest otherwise:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ion_debate
https://philosophynow.org/issues/36/Lib ... d_Abortion

My frame of mind here, however, revolves more around the extent to which even this is rooted in dasein. That, in other words, there does not appear to be a way in which to resolve this once and for all. That, instead, each individual had a unique set of experiences at the intersection of philosophy and abortion and based on that particular confluence of existential variables was predisposed to think one thing rather than another.

I still construe both the "universal" assumptions and the assessments embedded in particular contexts as largely "existential contraptions".


Peter Kropotkin wrote:now lies the problem..... at one time, you were an objectivist, you admit as much...
and you assume that people are "objectivist" because they don't see the world as you do....
but that is really is the result of how you view people, as you see them, not
necessarily as they see themselves.... if you start off thinking that everyone in
the world has sinned, then you will see everyone in the world sinning, but that
is not necessarily the truth, it is just you...…...your understanding of people dictates
your viewpoint of people.....


Not sure how your point here really addresses mine.

However we might see ourselves or others, we are still faced with the task of confronting conflicting goods such that certain behaviors [within any particular community] are either prescribed [rewarded] or proscribed [punished]. Some argue that this revolves around universal moral laws applicable to everyone. Others suggest that an objective morality revolves instead around an objective understanding of each particular contrext. What I argue however is that individual value judgments are rooted existentially at/in/around the historical, cultural and experiential intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

What interests me then are those who argue that their own value judgments are derived from something other than that: religion, political ideology [reason], assessments of nature etc.

I'm simply unclear as to how "for all practical purposes" your political/religious narrative [sans philosophy] actually "works" for you when confronting those who have views on issues like abortion at odds with your own.

Thus...

...my own reaction revolves around wanting to grasp the "position" from which you do come to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.
How do you not see your values here as just political prejudices [as "I" do] rooted in the manner in which I construe the nature of "self"/"identity" out in the is/ought world.
That's the part I am always most curious about. What goes on inside the head of those who are not down in the hole that I'm in when confronting conflicting goods in social, political and economic interactions.


Peter Kropotkin wrote:that idea conflicting goods in social, political and economics is not in my head,
it is your head... and it will help you understand things better if you can separate
out your thoughts from my thoughts.... I don't think like you do..... I care little
about those competing goods or "existential contraptions"..... it might work for
you, but it really doesn't work for me... I work off of different idea's and different
thoughts...… try to remember that...…. to be honest, I think the whole
conflicting goods and "existential contraptions" is really much, too much work.


Lots of people think it's "too much work". But most of them are objectivists. They "keep it simple" by the dividing the world neatly into "one of us" and "one of them". They genuinely come to believe that, out in the is/ought world, "I" is in sync with the "real me" in sync with either the optimal way in which to behave when confronted with an issue like abortion, or, in fact, the only rational manner in which virtuous people are obligated to behave.

So, I am still rather puzzled here as to what you do "care about" when confronting those who wish to prescribe and proscribe behaviors completely at odds with your own relating to political conflicts like abortion.

Do you have any examples of this of late [from your own life] that you can use to illustrate your text?

As of now this seems basically where we are "stuck".

Peter Kropotkin wrote:to call me an "objectivist" from a political or religious standpoint,
may or may not be correct, but I have no set philosophical standpoint
from which to call me an "objectivist"...……….


Then I am still completely baffled as to how you make this distinction. From my frame of mind an objectivist is someone who argues [either from a philosophical, religious or political perspective] that their value judgments regarding an issue like abortion reflect the most reasonable and virtuous frame of mind; and that in the best of all possible worlds "right makes might" would prevail.


Peter Kropotkin wrote:at the point of sounding repetitive, I think the problem lies with your thought
about "objectivist", it is a label and labels are rarely ever completely accurate or honest.....
a label is really nothing more then a prejudice or a habit to put upon people...….
remove the label, "objectivist" and try to see people another way...… but Kropotkin,
that is easier said then done...… yep...…...


As I see it, one either believes that their own value judgments reflect that which the legal and political superstructure ought to be predicated on [right makes might], or one acknowledges that "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" makes greater sense and thus moderation negotiation and compromise is more the political order of the day.

Or, as with many who own and operate the global economy today, right and wrong behaviors revolve mostly around "what's in it for me?" One or another rendition of might makes right.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:I am simply trying to gather the evidence to make some sort of
judgement about the human condition... to try to discover
what is the human problem and how do we solve this
problem of existence...………...and I am now leaning toward
some sort of embrace with art as a means toward our understanding
the problem of human existence...………...but I could easily be wrong...….
or not...……………..


Yet any number of the objectivists above make the same claim. Except for the part where they might possibly be wrong.
And [from my frame of mind] once you go down this path you are basically embracing the idea that "we're right from our side and they're right from theirs"


Peter Kropotkin wrote:and once again to be boring, the problem lies with your thought about objectivists....
I am talking about the matter philosophical, not politically or religious..... the problem of
existence is not a political or a religious matter, but a human matter... I don't care what
your political or religious thoughts are in regards to the question of the human problem,
that of human existence... it doesn't matter what your political or religious feelings
are.... the question/problem of human existence is not a day to day matter of politics
or religion, but of existence.....it is a metaphysical matter which I am investigating
right now and will be posting once I get a handle on it...….


My problem with this is [once again] that I gain no real sense of how "for all practical purposes" this enables you to confront others who don't share your own moral and political values.

Clearly one of the biggest "problems of existence" revolves around the question "how ought one to live?". And most folks intertwine one or another combination of philosophical, political and religious narratives into a practical assessment such that this propels their interactions with others. Here I'm down in the hole I describe above. But I really don't understand how you are not down in it.

Someone like Trump becomes the problem here only to the extent that his followers are convinced that his own value judgments [re an issue like abortion] are objectivist [like theirs]. And not just part of the political game that he plays to stay in power.


Peter Kropotkin wrote:I object to IQ45 on political/ religious idea's, not necessarily philosophical ones...
I could object to him based on values, but I really think he is a danger to America
based on facts...….. as far as I can tell, he is completely wrong about every single
issue and wrong being from my understanding of competing goods, existential contraption,
political economy... the whole nine yards... he is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.....
but that is from a political/religious standpoint...…..like an good "objectivist"


Okay, let's zero in on a particular policy of his. Say, for example, the wall on the southern border with Mexico. His immigration policy. How would you separate a political/religous assessment of his views here from that which an ethicist or political philosopher might speculate about using the tools of philosophy?

And then there is the gap between the language he might use and the extent to which a logician may or may not consture it as rational...as logical thinking.

And then the gap between what he claims to know about the issue of immigration and that which an epistemolosgist may or may not claim actually can be known.

You insist that he is wrong about every single issue. But how is that not just you insisting that being wrong here revolves around not sharing your own value judgments? And how are your own value judgments here not just manifestations of dasein?

Note the political/religious values embraced by men and women down through the ages. How are they not just "existential contraptions" embedded historically, culturally and experientially? Unless in fact someone [either using the political/religious path or the philosophical/scientific path] is able to concoct a set of values able to be demonstarated as that which all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to embody.

Then shifting gears [on my part] to the psychological parameters of all this:

Peter Kropotkin wrote:my positions are simply just questions attempting to create some meaning
in my life and perhaps, perhaps in yours or someone else life.... I simply report
my finding about the human condition... I state the problem of existence
and I try to understand the solution, if any, to this vexing problem...…….


As I see it though, a frame of mind like this may well be more in search of a psychological foundation upon which to anchor "I". Political values here then become more in sync with a psychological defense mechanism disguised as a moral or political commitment.
But I readily acknowledge that these relationships are [existentially] profoundly complex. I would never presume to suggest that "I" understand "you" here better than "you" understand "me". I just appear to be considerably more "fractured and fragmented". As I was with folks like karpel tunnel, phyllo, von rivers, gib, moreno, zinnat...


Peter Kropotkin wrote:I am not a fan of trying to turn political/religious/ philosophical thought into psychological
thought....it just isn't a very good fit...….


But how on earth can they be separated realistically? It's not like we live on a planet of Vulcans who are able to somehow reduce everything relating to an issue like abortion down to "logical", "not logical". Instead, our own species is programmed genetically to react to the world around us both cognitively and emotionally/psychologically. And that's before be get to the id and instinct and libido. Not to mention the part played by the subconscious and the unconscious mind.

And then finally, the imponderables embedded in things like determinism, sim worlds, demonic dreams, correlation vs. cause and effect, the ontological/teleological understanding of Existence itself.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: I am, in the worn out cliché, attempting to "think outside of the box"...…..
I may succeed or I may fail...……. but I don't believe that taking a set
philosophical position will allow me to solve the question of human existence...…


Again, from my frame of mind, inside or outside the box, the search for solutions to "the problem of human existence" remains "for all practical purposes" an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least until someone is able to convince me that it doesn't have to be.


Peter Kropotkin wrote:and that is where we part company, because I don't believe the search for the problem
of human existence must travel through dasein or conflicting goods or political economy....
there are other journeys to be made that don't require those "traits"
and to think that "for all practical purposes" the search for the solution to the human problem
must travel through those issues is to be as much an "objectivist" as anyone..........


You think this. But I have no clear or substantive understanding as to how thinking like this makes dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away.

And until you are able to describe to me more substantially how these components are not factored into your own conflicted interactions with others, I doubt I will ever grasp how the components of your own political agenda "work" for you out in the world that we are all familiar with here and now.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:I believe your path of finding the truth through dasein, conflicting goods or political economy
or "existential contraption" is your way, your method of being an "objectivist"......


Yes, I get this all the time. Only my "objectivism" does not allow for the sort of soothing comfort and consolation that the moral objectivists on both side of issues like abortion are able to take with them to the grave. Indeed, for some, even beyond the grave.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:and from where I sit, I really, really, really don't care....... its your way, not mine......


True enough. But then that is basically the psychological foundation that all folks able to think themselves into believing the world is divided between those who are "one of us" and those who are "one of them", are able to sink down into.

Here [re an issue like abortion] it's mostly the liberals and the conservatives. But there are hundreds of other moral and political and religious and philosophical perspectives out there.

All of them able to insist that "from where I sit, I really, really, really don't care....... its your way, not mine."

And, if we're lucky, they are of the sort that are tolerant of other points of view. And, if we're not lucky, we have to deal with those objectivists who insist that we either embrace their own perspectives or there is a price to be paid.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27377
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:44 pm

I am not ignoring you, iambiguous, I just have other fish
to fry today....

I am attempting to discover this thing called life.....
with the tools at hand..... we have logic and reason
and myths and habits and prejudices and superstitions,
but, I feel like I am writing a symphony with only one instrument...
a badly tuned instrument at that...….

the tools I have available to me aren't enough for me to
fully engage in any meaningful discussion of "what is life"

it would be like describing football/soccer to someone who
never seen the game and you have no resources to explain the game...
no blackboard or diagram to make your point...… you just have words
to explain what football/soccer is and words are woefully inadequate for
the task at hand.....

is life the suffering that the Buddha described, yes...….. and no.....
is life the pain that we feel, yes...………. and no...…
is life the joy and happiness we feel on occasion, yes...………. and no...…

it is the contradictions that make life so difficult to understand and explain...….

T.S. Elliot was a philosophy major at one time...… and he thought that
existence wasn't a problem.....the creation of problem of existence came
when you actually thought about existence.... it isn't a problem until
you make it one...…..and he thought that by thinking about our dwelling
on the problem of existence, that you actually create the problem...…

it isn't a problem until you make it one...…..and that is what philosophers did
he thought, created problem where there weren't problems to begin with....

and he has a point...……

but like the genie in the bottle, once the problem is discovered,
you can't put the problem back into the bottle...……..

so we are left with what seems to be unsolvable problems in existence
and being...……..

How do we deal with this?

the question of being, of existence has been debated and discussed for
over 2500 years and still, there is not a conclusion to be found.....
or even a road map to some conclusion...……….

the complexity of existence, (I almost wrote mystery instead of complexity) the complexity
of existence demands some resolution to our problem...……. for one may argue,
that our confusion and ignorance and bafflement of existence, is the reason
for our current dilemma...…….

we hate and fight and bicker and have anger toward not because we hold
those lower level instincts, but because we haven't replaced them with something
better.....our world is so fractional and dysfunctional is because we haven't
created an overarching ideal upon which we can build the next stage of society/
culture...………

personally, I am not sure of the path we need to take to discover the next
stage of human development...…………

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Dan~ » Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:03 am

the question of being, of existence has been debated and discussed for
over 2500 years and still, there is not a conclusion to be found

You mean to tell me that virtually nobody has ever found a conclusion about this?
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9975
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:43 pm

Dan~ wrote:
the question of being, of existence has been debated and discussed for
over 2500 years and still, there is not a conclusion to be found

You mean to tell me that virtually nobody has ever found a conclusion about this?



K: nope, there has been no conclusion in over 2500 years about the question of
being, of existence and, and to those who say, yes, there has been a conclusion,
I kindly ask them to tell me what that conclusion was, so I can note it in my
diary...…..

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:26 pm

OK, Iambigous, I am ready to tackle this issue

let us try this abortion issue...… from top to bottom, as best as I can.....

you can create a list for the pro and cons of abortion....
for example, you can, medically save some women who need to have an abortion to
save their lives.... and con is baby fetuses die......but a list of this sort
still has all the emotional baggage that we bring to the table.......
no matter how much we try to be "rational".....

we can point out the religious arguments as a con
and we can point out the right of women to make their own choices involving
their bodies....as a pro..........

but the bottom line becomes this, no matter where we lay the arguments,
they still are arguments of emotions and of biases and of habits and prejudices,
in other words, arguments based from a certain point of view and there is no
point of view where we can have some "higher" viewpoint that trumps any other
viewpoints........

so the question becomes, upon what means do we "judge" the entire abortion
from..... what criteria should we use to "judge" this matter?

What arbitary and objectivist viewpoint should we use to "judge"
the case of abortion?

because no matter where we plant the flag of "this is the right viewpoint"
then we run into trouble, because how do we "know" that this viewpoint is the
right one? throught which "lens" or which ism or ideology shall we base our
view upon that is the "right" viewpoint.........

Here we run into one of Kant's old questions, how do I know?
the very means upon which we judge such things as abortion
or anything else is subjective...……… it is not possible for me to ask
"objective" questions that even get me close to an answer about abortion
because the very questions we use to understand the matter are laced with
subjectivity...….so above when I said, let us create a list of pro and cons,
the very list itself is a biased, subjective list...…. there is no way I can reach
an unbiased list about abortion because of the very bias that I have, that I
have had since childhood...………

on a personal note, my entire existence is based on the abortion issue...…
when my mom was pregnant with me, she got German measles and
when a pregnant women gets German measles, whatever is developing
in the fetus gets affected... she was 4 months pregnant with me,
so the doctors, fearing the worse, suggested she get a "procedure" which
is a nice way of saying abortion...…. she, for some reason,
said no and when I was born, I had all my body parts in the right places
and the doctors felt that was a major, major victory.... everyone was expecting
me to come out severely damaged... just having a hearing loss was considered
to be a major victory......so my own personal story is where I was personally
affected by abortion or not, in my case...…….. and this is why I support abortion....
because my mom and family would have had to care and support me to the end of my
days had I been born damaged...… as it was with a hearing loss, it was quite
a grind during my childhood for which I still have a sister who is angry
about the attention devoted to me because of my constant round of doctors
and hearing tests all through my childhood..... she still holds a grudge about it,
over 55 year ago.....it is what it is...………………. I am a witness to the entire
abortion debate and my story influences my understanding, my subjectivity
to the abortion debate...……..I cannot sort out my past with my beliefs about
abortion...…..I cannot, no matter how hard I try, try to be objective about
abortion... I just can't be objective………...

and we all are witnesses to our past and that past influences our understanding
of matters like abortion...………………. so when you speak of dasein or competing
goods or political economy, it doesn't matter to me because my story is different
and has nothing to do with dasein or competing goods.... my story, my relationship
to abortions is too personal to compare to dasein or competing goods which to my
mind is to impersonal for something that has directly influenced my life...………

I don't pretend to be a impartial or objective observer to abortions....
I am not...……..

but my sole saving grace is this, I am aware of my bias toward abortions
so, when I make some statement about abortions, my past is always on
my mind and influences my judgement...……….no matter how impartial or
objective I try to be...……

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:33 pm

[quote="Peter Kropotkin"]OK, Iambigous, I am ready to tackle this issue

let us try this abortion issue...… from top to bottom, as best as I can.....

you can create a list for the pro and cons of abortion....
for example, you can, medically save some women who need to have an abortion to
save their lives.... and con is baby fetuses die......but a list of this sort
still has all the emotional baggage that we bring to the table.......
no matter how much we try to be "rational".....

we can point out the religious arguments as a con
and we can point out the right of women to make their own choices involving
their bodies....as a pro..........

but the bottom line becomes this, no matter where we lay the arguments,
they still are arguments of emotions and of biases and of habits and prejudices,
in other words, arguments based from a certain point of view and there is no
point of view where we can have some "higher" viewpoint that trumps any other
viewpoints........

so the question becomes, upon what means do we "judge" the entire abortion
from..... what criteria should we use to "judge" this matter?

What arbitary and objectivist viewpoint should we use to "judge"
the case of abortion?

because no matter where we plant the flag of "this is the right viewpoint"
then we run into trouble, because how do we "know" that this viewpoint is the
right one? throught which "lens" or which ism or ideology shall we base our
view upon that is the "right" viewpoint.........

Here we run into one of Kant's old questions, how do I know?
the very means upon which we judge such things as abortion
or anything else is subjective...……… it is not possible for me to ask
"objective" questions that even get me close to an answer about abortion
because the very questions we use to understand the matter are laced with
subjectivity...….so above when I said, let us create a list of pro and cons,
the very list itself is a biased, subjective list...…. there is no way I can reach
an unbiased list about abortion because of the very bias that I have, that I
have had since childhood...………

on a personal note, my entire existence is based on the abortion issue...…
when my mom was pregnant with me, she got German measles and
when a pregnant women gets German measles, whatever is developing
in the fetus gets affected... she was 4 months pregnant with me,
so the doctors, fearing the worse, suggested she get a "procedure" which
is a nice way of saying abortion...…. she, for some reason,
said no and when I was born, I had all my body parts in the right places
and the doctors felt that was a major, major victory.... everyone was expecting
me to come out severely damaged... just having a hearing loss was considered
to be a major victory......so my own personal story is where I was personally
affected by abortion or not, in my case...…….. and this is why I support abortion....
because my mom and family would have had to care and support me to the end of my
days had I been born damaged...… as it was with a hearing loss, it was quite
a grind during my childhood for which I still have a sister who is angry
about the attention devoted to me because of my constant round of doctors
and hearing tests all through my childhood..... she still holds a grudge about it,
over 55 year ago.....it is what it is...………………. I am a witness to the entire
abortion debate and my story influences my understanding, my subjectivity
to the abortion debate...……..I cannot sort out my past with my beliefs about
abortion...…..I cannot, no matter how hard I try, try to be objective about
abortion... I just can't be objective………...

and we all are witnesses to our past and that past influences our understanding
of matters like abortion...………………. so when you speak of dasein or competing
goods or political economy, it doesn't matter to me because my story is different
and has nothing to do with dasein or competing goods.... my story, my relationship
to abortions is too personal to compare to dasein or competing goods which to my
mind is to impersonal for something that has directly influenced my life...………

I don't pretend to be a impartial or objective observer to abortions....
I am not...……..

but my sole saving grace is this, I am aware of my bias toward abortions
so, when I make some statement about abortions, my past is always on
my mind and influences my judgement...……….no matter how impartial or
objective I try to be...……"

K: ok, have spent the last day trying to understand my last post in terms
of how we understand things..........I have been personally influenced by
the issue of abortion and no matter how hard I try, I cannot be impartial
or objective to that issue........... my entire life is haunted by this issue.......

but to try to force that into some arbitary and fixed examples like
dasein, competing goods or political ecoonomy seems to be rather foolish.....
One can of course try to see life in terms of dasein, competing goods or
political economy, but frankly given my emotional context (context is just another
word for experience) given my context to abortion, I just don't see
abortion in terms of such limiting words like dasein or competing goods or
political econonomy.....those words fit when the context is a shallow one,
but when the connection is a deep one, then they don't fit the situation at all.....

ok, now let us expand our thinking....... what if most people, most, people
have an emotional context to such words like abortion, as I do.......
then trying to explore abortion via such limited means as dasein or
competing goods or political economy seems to me anyway, rather
a shallow attempt to understand abortion given the emotional
reaction to the word that we have...………

in other words, we react to the word abortion with an emotional context
and there is very little that will prevent us from doing so...… we cannot
be so rational and logical that we can suspend our emotional context to
the word abortion long enough to make rational, logical choices.....

the emotional reaction to the word abortion overrides any attempt to
be rational/logical about abortion.... we cannot see the idea of dasein
and competing goods or political economy as being a useful way to
understand abortion when we are full of the emotional context
that we have lived...………..the attempt to view life via dasein,
or competing goods or political economy is doomed when faced with
such an emotional feelings that abortion brings up...…………

I hope I have made sense on some level......I am not even sure
I understand it...….

although upon reflection, I can see how this explains the conservative
attitude toward rational, logical matters...…… their emotions
override any rational/logical understanding of life or matters pertaining to
life...….their emotionalism overrides any rationalism or logical thought about
what is life...……….ummmmm, more food for thought...….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:35 am

currently, I am fighting a bad shoulder, one that hurts even just being....
and typing is painful, so hang with me as I've taken a muscle relaxer to
tame this really bad pain...……….

so, I've declared myself as a materialist..... which is to say, I don't
believe in god or any metaphysical notion that goes with the concept of god.....

I've declared myself in opposition to millions, nay, say billions who declare
that we live in a metaphysical world.....that we have a god among other
metaphysical notions...… but I think perhaps we should really understand
what metaphysical actually means...….

according to the "Metaphysical" article on the "Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy", which I have read over 30 times in the last two weeks,
metaphysical means certain things...……...that there is a classical definition
to metaphysical and a more modern one...……

the classical definition to "metaphysical" is
1. the nature of being.
2. the first cause of things.
3. things that do not change...….

now Kant added some stuff to this definition,
he added his famous phrase, "God, freedom, and immortality"
to also mean metaphysical...………
so the idea of metaphysics had expanded in modern times...…
you can have free will and determinism, the question
of universals and particulars, substance: the topic of Spinoza,
"true propositions", space/time, parts and wholes, causation,
the mental and the physical and the question of, is the world the
one we see or do we have mental representation of the world that
is radically different then the world actually is?

so, one can see that metaphysics as a topic, has grown substantially.....
from those three little questions of Aristotle or Plato...……….

now let us imagine that any question even denying metaphysics
is now considered a metaphysical question...……
and that is in fact the state of metaphysical study, these days
denying god is considered a metaphysical question.. even if one doesn't
believe in metaphysical questions, raising the question of god or universals
or freedom is considered a metaphysical question..... personally, I
don't think so, but apparently I am in the very small minority...….

again, so we have questions of metaphysics, the nature of being,
or as certain people around here call it, Dasein, in German....
so to engage in the pursuit of Dasein is to pursue a metaphysical
question... the pursuit of being or existence...…..

now I have denied metaphysical questions such as god and immortality,
as I don't need them in my pursuit of philosophy...……

the question of freedom is a very important question,
but considered metaphysical...……..

so let return to the classic definition of metaphysics,
the nature of being, first cause of things and things that do not change...…

so, what is being? what is existence? people have been arguing over that since
humans can argue over that...… a long, long time and still there is no answer to
the question of being, to the question of existence...….

the second understanding of metaphysics, the first cause of things,
which is another way of saying god...…. but I stand with the scientist
that first cause of things is the Big Bang theory...…..
and from those forces/laws comes the universe and the stars and the
planets and then life and then after a long while, us...………..
you can plausibly create a story of the first cause of things without
engaging in god...… it is not hard...……..

and the third understanding of metaphysics, things that do not change...…..
but the problem is everything changes, everything..... even god...
read the old testament against the new testament and you will see a
far different god in the new testament vs the old testament...….
look about the world we live in, it is the very definition of change....
stars change and the planets change and the very universe seems to change....
it was born, created by the big bang and it will someday end, to have history, is to have
a beginning or ending and that is change...…...

so we cannot defend traditional metaphysics as constituted,
we do not understand being/existence and there is a logical/rational explanation
for the first cause and everything changes, you just have to give it enough time....

so perhaps in these modern metaphysical questions we can find some
grounds to linger and think about them...….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:13 am

so we have the three problems of metaphysics since Aristotle,
the nature of being, the first cause of things and things that do not change...…..

the first cause of things was assumed to be god, then the next question was
the nature of being and what was god's being, and part of that creation
was also the soul, which is the traditional idea of things that do not
change...…. so the entire question of metaphysics revolved around god
and his being and how he created something that did not change, our soul....

and if you understand philosophy from the time of Aristotle right down
to Descartes, you will see how these three questions are asked and resolved,
the question of god, his being and our soul... that could be the list of medieval
philosophy........

but I say, they are the wrong questions.. but in saying so, it becomes a metaphysical
question or so they tell me....... so no matter what I say, it become a metaphysical
question..... rather deterministic of them, isn't it?

so to return to the question, the question of the nature of being, the first
cause of things and things that do not change.......

I believe we know of the first cause of things and everything changes and so we
don't need to concern ourselves with that metaphysical proposition,
but this question of the nature of being, of existence.......
we have turned this question from the nature of god's being/existence
to the nature of man's being/existence...... who are we and what are our
possibilities, is a metaphysical qeustions and in all of our human existence,
we still haven't been able to answer the question of our being, of our existence.....
that suggest to me that that question might be the wrong question if we are unable
to answer a question that has existed since time began for man..........

what would be the right question? how does my existence influence
the greater whole existence? perhaps, or perhaps a question might be,
to what end does my existence need to go?

or perhaps, what can I/we know? what ought I/we to do? what may I/we hope for?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:35 pm

Peter Kropotkin: so we have the three problems of metaphysics since Aristotle,
the nature of being, the first cause of things and things that do not change...…..

the first cause of things was assumed to be god, then the next question was
the nature of being and what was god's being, and part of that creation
was also the soul, which is the traditional idea of things that do not
change...…. so the entire question of metaphysics revolved around god
and his being and how he created something that did not change, our soul....

and if you understand philosophy from the time of Aristotle right down
to Descartes, you will see how these three questions are asked and resolved,
the question of god, his being and our soul... that could be the list of medieval
philosophy........

but I say, they are the wrong questions.. but in saying so, it becomes a metaphysical
question or so they tell me....... so no matter what I say, it become a metaphysical
question..... rather deterministic of them, isn't it?

so to return to the question, the question of the nature of being, the first
cause of things and things that do not change.......

I believe we know of the first cause of things and everything changes and so we
don't need to concern ourselves with that metaphysical proposition,
but this question of the nature of being, of existence.......
we have turned this question from the nature of god's being/existence
to the nature of man's being/existence...... who are we and what are our
possibilities, is a metaphysical qeustions and in all of our human existence,
we still haven't been able to answer the question of our being, of our existence.....
that suggest to me that that question might be the wrong question if we are unable
to answer a question that has existed since time began for man..........

what would be the right question? how does my existence influence
the greater whole existence? perhaps, or perhaps a question might be,
to what end does my existence need to go?

or perhaps, what can I/we know? what ought I/we to do? what may I/we hope for?


K: so we have our three points of metaphysics, the nature of being, the first cause
of things and things that do not change.....

so let us run it against Kant's three questions..... if we have the points of
metaphysics being the first cause of things being god and the nature of being
being god's being and the things that do not change being our soul..... then
the question of what can I/we know? becomes what can we know in light of
there being a god...…. he knows everything and we can only know what he
has allowed us to know....

and the nature of being becomes what is god's being and so we somehow
come to understand that..... and in things that do not change, we must somehow
understand our soul...…

but let us rephrase this, in a metaphysical world, what we know and what we do
and what we hope for, are all about this question of god....what is god and what
does he want us to do and what can I hope for, heaven...…..

it is pretty straight forward when you include a god into Kant's questions,
but and this is important, Kant didn't take the old school route of metaphysics.....
he felt for reasons of his own, he was raised in a very religious background, pietist,
he felt that there was a god, and he didn't put god in the category of things that we
know, because for him, we couldn't know god, recall your Hume, but he put
god into the category of things we can hope for...…and that is where god exists for
Kant...….in things I/we hope for...………

let us revisit Kant's questions, what can I/we know?
we can know whatever our sense can tell us.....
but Kropotkin, by way of Einstein's theories, we can know
by pure reason, not experience, we can know the theory of relativity
and about black holes and how space/time are the same things,
and how matter and energy are the same thing, recall your formula
of E=mc2...… energy = matter...…. and all of this from Einstein's
formula gotten by pure reason....do you recall that Einstein did
thought experiments and via these thought experiments was he able
to work out the problems he had...… thought experiments...…..
thought experiments that need to conducted by experiences...….
one thought experiment was a man in a elevator.... that wasn't
pure reason, that was a man in an elevator..... Einstein used practical
experience to discover his truths...………….and mathematics is not
pure reason, it is experienced carried to a degree...… even geometry,
which was used very early in history for the use of dealing with
length, area and volume...………

so we return to the next question, what are we to do?
if there is a god, then we must devote our time to what does
god need us to do..... but if there is no god, then the question
of "what are we to do" changes.....

are we to find happiness? are we to find the truth? are we meant
to discover the means to release suffering? then all sorts of questions
come front and center...……….is it power and fame and money, is that
what we are to do?

remove god from the equation of "what we are to do", and that changes into
possibilities...….we have all sorts of possibilities for "what are we to do"?

but "who are we" can answer the question of "what we are to do?"

for example, we are social creatures, we must exist with each other....
so part of the answer to "what are we to do" must involve others,
we must engage with others......and so we have narrowed it down a bit,
"what are we to do" must means, we must engage with others on some level.

and so if we have an understanding of who we are, we can then come closer to
answering the question, "what are we to do?"

so, what are we to do?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6850
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users