How can I arrive at truth?

[blazeofglory]

I know my journey is endless; I want to press forward leaving footprints in the sands of time. I am a speck no doubt yet have a feeling and am trying to connect with the infinite. I cannot remain stagnant and unversed in what goes on around, scientifically, spiritually and philosophically. I can not terminate the journey, this eternal journey, staying at rest, for I am a man, and mannishness, not an inversion of womanishness, is what defines me. And this restiveness is what sets me in perpetual motion to explore into the outer and inner domains, but what we call outer and inner are my own projections. This cosmos extends and expands infinitely is external to me and the same keeps on contracting and gets confined to my own existence. It can not go beyond me. Everything is my own expansion and contraction. God exists because I exist and God can not have an existence of its own bereft of me.

Indeed life is an enigma, and I always wonder at things I see, the ever expanding cosmos, and the littleness of me in this expanse universe. I wonder as to why I am here and why do I do what I do. The fact that I am a mortal and that whatever I do, what great works get carried our by me is unsubstantial and subject to destruction, also torments me. Should I take comforts in science or solace in spirituality? I am unsure indeed, for both ends can not satisfy or answer some of the questions for which I am always seeking answers.

I read, and write, and debate, for I am not content with making a living or I am after something all my ancestors seeking and this generation too is perpetuating. Man by nature wonders at phenomena at sight and he cannot proceed the way his counterparts, animal beings do, content with eating and breeding. Maybe that is why he is more stressed, and advanced today and triumphed over natural forces.

Indeed endless questions crop up in my mind, and I cannot stay quiet without giving expressions to my thoughts. That is why I am here to communicate ideas across, and this gives me shades of contentment. I do not know whether or not I arrive at truth thorough this journey, yet this is an adventure I can not do away with.

[Lote-Tree]

What Truth do you seek?

Do you wish to know Truth of how hot the sun burns?

Or how deep is the Ocean?


Is it something else?


By your avatar I would assume you don't seek that. You seek a truth that goes beyond language and ideas and the imagination itself?

Then you should join the Shadus, the Sufis, the Kabalists, the mystics...

You will not find anything here...

[NikolaiI]

It makes sense that you would say " a truth that goes beyond language, or imganation itself" for this is only possible if our imagination is bound by our language. It is not the most imaginative thought to disregard language...or devalue it... as not depicting events, reality, accurately. For instance the idea of cosmic enlightenment. It is not beyond our imganation, it is simply an idea which we pursue; one which exists outside of time. It is not beyond abstraction, it is the absence of abstraction. There is no time for the tree. A tree does not comprehend itself with abstraction, in fact, there is no "It" to the tree, it simply is it. The same thing with ourselves---- we are ourselves, despite whatever delusions we hold about our identity. To say-- "I am a man," would be false, it would be based on NOTHING, yet to say the opposite would be deemed ridiculous, insane, it would be spurned, shunned, and ignored.

The truth, Blaze, is very simple, yet it takes years to get there. Consider the Zen master who said to his student, "The essence of your mind is not born yet, so it will not die." My interpretation of this is based on Buddhist wisdom, which states that the essence of the mind does not exist.

My answer to you, Blaze, is that you should keep doing what you are doing, and further, take up yoga and Tai Chi. Tai Chi will strengthen your body and your mind, and will purify your body like yoga. But I wouldn't simply say this and leave you there, I'll say keep working towards the truth. Try to figure out how to make progress, how to climb towards higher states, towards more real being. Figure out what this means for you. Always ask questions, but more importantly, do away with misconceptions. The Gita is one of the highest valued sources of wisdom in the world, but it is obviously not satisfying you. I mean, it is good that you wish to seek new sources, higher or equally high, but the problem....the Gita is already the highest, and the new sources are there, but you must know what you want, in fact, the problem rests as it always does in ourselves. You are a sensitive and intelligent soul, Blaze, I recognzie that in you and it will not let you be satisfied with anything less but the highest standards... yet you still wish to pursue the truth. Some day you will come to study Pure Land Buddhism, and some day years later you will fully absorb the meaning of it. You must strive all of your self, but eventually you must let go of striving, and actually when we let go of it, and call to the Other Shore, to Amida Buddha, then it becomes real for us. Does this make sense? So the only thing souls like you and I can really do, Blaze, is strive for the Other Shore, in terms of the Pure Land, or strive for progress of the absolute, as in Hinduism. Blaze, it is so much easier to attain the higher planets when you have someone who is there who can help guide you. Yet the state is so precious only because it is so rare, which makes it difficult to find. But if you find such a person, and I hope you do, then together you can support each other in your journey, you can nourish each others' souls with the richest treasures, with the purest love, and nourish each others' minds and ideas with the most cutting wisdom. You and I have done this some, and I am sorry that I haven't been as active as I should be in cultivating our friendship. In fact, there are no words to describe this kind of progress. We can't say-- Ah, I was precisely here, and now I am here; at least if we said this it wouldn't be taken or understood. Fortunately there are other things we can talk about, like yoga, meditation, Gods, spirituality, heaven, the higher planets, and by means of language we can share our meaning. I ask you, what do you know is true? Do you agree that you know true ideas are true? This is something I believe and live by. My learning and discovery has pointed me towards God as the true reality, in many, many, many different ways. Nothing that I think is true disagrees with this. And there are certain things everyone agrees upon, which are very important, such as letting go of anger-- that is a very important one. If we can release thoughts of anger, then we banish hatred for all time. That is one of the early verses in the Dhammapadda. Yet if we are not able to banish anger, then we do not make so much progress, we may come to a certain level of happiness or maturity, but then just like a roller coaster we are suddenly making backwards progress. So, make progress, learn, strengthen, be honest and true to yourself and those you call friend, banish anger, and then find a way to make progress of the absolute, which you will not lose. This is the path to truth.

[karamel]

i was often thinking for what all that studying of old texts - to way to the truth, enlightenment is an individual and even if you can get an inspiration for your road, I believe all the essential answers are those that we have within. it's very intimate and personal, i dont think you can find answers in any book...by that i dont mean to be disrespectful or so, i agree with much of the things you said...not just in this post. yoga, meditations, knowing yourself those are the most important things i believe lead to the truth - although it is questionable if we all arrive at truth. Which just as well as all the other things, has the tendency to drift away when you try too hard to get it...to me that is it, look within yourself and let things flow...

[Lote-Tree]

It makes sense that you would say " a truth that goes beyond language, or imganation itself" for this is only possible if our imagination is bound by our language. It is not the most imaginative thought to disregard language...or devalue it... as not depicting events, reality, accurately. For instance the idea of cosmic enlightenment. It is not beyond our imganation, it is simply an idea which we pursue; one which exists outside of time. It is not beyond abstraction, it is the absence of abstraction. There is no time for the tree. A tree does not comprehend itself with abstraction, in fact, there is no "It" to the tree, it simply is it. The same thing with ourselves---- we are ourselves, despite whatever delusions we hold about our identity. To say-- "I am a man," would be false, it would be based on NOTHING, yet to say the opposite would be deemed ridiculous, insane, it would be spurned, shunned, and ignored.

The truth, Blaze, is very simple, yet it takes years to get there. Consider the Zen master who said to his student, "The essence of your mind is not born yet, so it will not die." My interpretation of this is based on Buddhist wisdom, which states that the essence of the mind does not exist.

My answer to you, Blaze, is that you should keep doing what you are doing, and further, take up yoga and Tai Chi. Tai Chi will strengthen your body and your mind, and will purify your body like yoga. But I wouldn't simply say this and leave you there, I'll say keep working towards the truth. Try to figure out how to make progress, how to climb towards higher states, towards more real being. Figure out what this means for you. Always ask questions, but more importantly, do away with misconceptions. The Gita is one of the highest valued sources of wisdom in the world, but it is obviously not satisfying you. I mean, it is good that you wish to seek new sources, higher or equally high, but the problem....the Gita is already the highest, and the new sources are there, but you must know what you want, in fact, the problem rests as it always does in ourselves. You are a sensitive and intelligent soul, Blaze, I recognzie that in you and it will not let you be satisfied with anything less but the highest standards... yet you still wish to pursue the truth. Some day you will come to study Pure Land Buddhism, and some day years later you will fully absorb the meaning of it. You must strive all of your self, but eventually you must let go of striving, and actually when we let go of it, and call to the Other Shore, to Amida Buddha, then it becomes real for us. Does this make sense? So the only thing souls like you and I can really do, Blaze, is strive for the Other Shore, in terms of the Pure Land, or strive for progress of the absolute, as in Hinduism. Blaze, it is so much easier to attain the higher planets when you have someone who is there who can help guide you. Yet the state is so precious only because it is so rare, which makes it difficult to find. But if you find such a person, and I hope you do, then together you can support each other in your journey, you can nourish each others' souls with the richest treasures, with the purest love, and nourish each others' minds and ideas with the most cutting wisdom. You and I have done this some, and I am sorry that I haven't been as active as I should be in cultivating our friendship. In fact, there are no words to describe this kind of progress. We can't say-- Ah, I was precisely here, and now I am here; at least if we said this it wouldn't be taken or understood. Fortunately there are other things we can talk about, like yoga, meditation, Gods, spirituality, heaven, the higher planets, and by means of language we can share our meaning. I ask you, what do you know is true? Do you agree that you know true ideas are true? This is something I believe and live by. My learning and discovery has pointed me towards God as the true reality, in many, many, many different ways. Nothing that I think is true disagrees with this. And there are certain things everyone agrees upon, which are very important, such as letting go of anger-- that is a very important one. If we can release thoughts of anger, then we banish hatred for all time. That is one of the early verses in the Dhammapadda. Yet if we are not able to banish anger, then we do not make so much progress, we may come to a certain level of happiness or maturity, but then just like a roller coaster we are suddenly making backwards progress. So, make progress, learn, strengthen, be honest and true to yourself and those you call friend, banish anger, and then find a way to make progress of the absolute, which you will not lose. This is the path to truth.

Ah Nikolai! I did not realise you were so familiar with Eastern Philosophy :D Bueno! :D

Yes. Gita and Buddhas Sermons are indeed great spiritual works of humanity.

[NikolaiI]

Ah Nikolai! I did not realise you were so familiar with Eastern Philosophy :D Bueno! :D

Yes. Gita and Buddhas Sermons are indeed great spiritual works of humanity.


Yes, I have, Lote!!!

Have you heard of Ati and Mahamudra? These are teachinges I pursue-- I am very receptive to them. I studied the songs of Milarepa rather in-depthly, and more briefly the lives of Tilopa, Naropa and Marpa, too.

In Hinduism I have only studied the Gita, and with that I am about a third of the way through. Did you ever know-- A.C. Bhaktivedanata Swami Prabhupada wrote that the Buddha, that is, Avalokiteshvara Buddha, was a reincarnation of Krishna???? I find this a very beautiful thought.

Also of Eastern philosophy I love Taoism, Tai Chi, Confucianism, and I've briefly also studied the I Ching, and would like to take a more in-depth, also serious study into that as well.

[blazeofglory]

Yes, I have, Lote!!!

Have you heard of Ati and Mahamudra? These are teachinges I pursue-- I am very receptive to them. I studied the songs of Milarepa rather in-depthly, and more briefly the lives of Tilopa, Naropa and Marpa, too.

Also of Eastern philosophy I love Taoism, Tai Chi, Confucianism, and I've briefly also studied the I Ching, and would like to take a more in-depth, also serious study into that as well.

I am really highly absorbed in Taoism. The Tao Path is really a great path, I believe that leads towards truth. Indeed the way to truth is pathless yet the Tao Path is something really subtle.

Lao Tze is one of my all times favorites and every time I read I find something highly touching and teaching. I am a tireless reader of him. I am sure his poems or teachings transform all those who immerse themselves in the ocean of his ideas.

[Lambert]

Sorry to undercut the admittedly schmaltzy plethora of New Age “philosophy” tripe on this thread:

Try to figure out how to make progress, how to climb towards higher states, towards more real being. Figure out what this means for you. Always ask questions, but more importantly, do away with misconceptions.


I am really highly absorbed in Taoism. The Tao Path is really a great path, I believe that leads towards truth. Indeed the way to truth is pathless yet the Tao Path is something really subtle.


You seek a truth that goes beyond language and ideas and the imagination itself?
but let’s try to ground this question of truth a little more.

Firstly, it’s a bit hard to believe that none of you, when responding to a question relating to Truth, have brought up the problem of Truth in the post-modern age, if I can use that term. Much of the discourse in our society today, in art, politics, religion, media etc, is being overburdened by the glut of cynicism and derisive irony that has developed in this period of human history. To talk about Truth in this chirpy, happy-go-lucky manner with absolutely no reference to the contemporary problems I've just mentioned, seems like an extraordinary exercise in frivolousness.

Secondly, that fact so many of you on this forum seem to think that New Age “philosophy” is proper philosophy simply because it sounds nice and pleasing (the literary equivalent to cotton wool, as a good friend of mine refers to it), seems to reflect your conscious or unconscious dislike of Western philosophy: that its method is rational inquiry using a specific philosophical terminology not mawkish, pseudo-mystical Universe-In-A-Grain-Of-Sand type psychobabble; that it could present you either with the cold reality of the presence of Truth, or the even colder reality of the absence of Truth and not a safe mystical barrier that lets you digress endlessly in clichés about endless paths and endless journeys; that it somehow makes you less optimistic about life and doesn’t act like a second religion, like new Age “philosophy”, in which you are the pious servant constantly living in an echo chamber listening to such great, insipid one-liners as “We will be reincarnated”, “We are all one in the universe”, “Lets go on a endless mystical journey!”

[NikolaiI]

I wasn't writing with affiliation to New Age or anything else. My ideas about a more real being are influenced deeply by Plato. I'm also influenced by the Dhammapada and the Gita.

What strikes me as interesting... well, psychology, philosophy...

Negativity and positivity are two sides of the same coin, Lambert, whatever that coin is. This is the nature of polarities. I do not ignore negativity.

In asking about progress towards philosophical truth psychology is important, and state of mind is important. It interests me, what this progress means, how we can do so, how we can share, all of this.

My ideas about being, phenomena, truth, God, and reality are influenced most highly by reason. It was reason that brought me to faith in God.

[Lote-Tree]

Firstly, it’s a bit hard to believe that none of you, when responding to a question relating to Truth, have brought up the problem of Truth in the post-modern age, if I can use that term.


But dear Lambert I have :D

I have made the distinction of Objectively Verfiable Truth and the other Truth which is the Subjective Experience of the Individual.



Secondly, that fact so many of you on this forum seem to think that New Age “philosophy” is proper philosophy simply because it sounds nice and pleasing (the literary equivalent to cotton wool, as a good friend of mine refers to it), seems to reflect your conscious or unconscious dislike of Western philosophy:


False. There is nothing "New Age" about it. Subjective Truths has been around since the dawn of human consciouness.



that its method is rational inquiry using a specific philosophical terminology not mawkish, pseudo-mystical Universe-In-A-Grain-Of-Sand type psychobabble;


There is nothing Irrational about it. It is just Subjective.

[blazeofglory]

But dear Lambert I have :D


False. There is nothing "New Age" about it. Subjective Truths has been around since the dawn of human consciousness.


Lote, truth, I want to put what I perceive forward: there is no subjective truth or objective truth. Truth is one, indivisibly one, integrally one. It can not be subjective or objective. I believe truth can not be a subject of rationalization at all.

In point of fact , Lote I am not judgmental of what you said. Maybe you are right. This is what I understand or perceive in essence. Something to share with you you.

Truth is a pathless land, and of course un-philosophical. No philosophies can comprehend it. And we can not comprehend truth, let alone classify it or categorize it. It can not be fragmented nor can it be communicated the way we do in words. Maybe nuances of truth can be comprehended through our worded communications.

Lote I am not opposing your points, and I can not do so, for I myself have to find it out. Your points indeed help me broaden my perspective in point of fact.

This is communication and while criticizing you I am criticizing myself, for I believe that you are not a different entity separate from the whole of which I feel I am part. In point of fact you are part of me.

[Etienne]

Lambert is right, philosophy on this forum seems to mean new-age mysticism and "salon" philosophy, with very few academic and even less contemporary references. Also: "My ideas about a more real being are influenced deeply by Plato." Using Plato as a main influence to contemporary philosophical question really goes in the vein of what Lambert criticized.

If you are really interested in these questions, look for philosophical works that treat of it. Reading the ancients is a great idea, however some more modern works are a must if one wants to engage in a real discussion about the subject.

The modern philosophical term, if you really want to engage in a search for philosophical sources about the problem you raised would be epistemology or theory of knowledge.

[NikolaiI]

Lambert is right, philosophy on this forum seems to mean new-age mysticism and "salon" philosophy, with very few academic and even less contemporary references. Also: "My ideas about a more real being are influenced deeply by Plato." Using Plato as a main influence to contemporary philosophical question really goes in the vein of what Lambert criticized.

It doesn't seem so to me. Now I don't worship every word Plato wrote, or like or agree with everything attributed to him, in fact some of it I don't like, and some of it I think is shmaltzy. I don't mention him because he is ancient, but because of his philosophy that talks about the ideas I have. And...I don't know who else would say it's not a correct term, but I've read in books his philosophy of being called a Philosophy of Being. It doesn't matter what it's called, and the title of it doesn't explain it all anyway.


If you are really interested in these questions, look for philosophical works that treat of it. Reading the ancients is a great idea, however some more modern works are a must if one wants to engage in a real discussion about the subject.

I'm sorry, but I have to discard this entirely. Learning and education are good, and we can talk about that, but I find it arbitrary to say that someone must read certain things to engage "real discussions" on the subject. Anything is possible-- someone could understand the issues intuitively. Someone could write a book of philosophy, having only read ancient works, and if it was 2000+ years ahead of its time, then it would have surpassed all the moderns. Now, I agree with you and I know that education is a must for engaging in real discussion, but I just disagree that it must be education of modern or contemporaries. Education in writing and reasoning, for example, is also a must if someone is to be understood in a rational way, etc., all of this.


The modern philosophical term, if you really want to engage in a search for philosophical sources about the problem you raised would be epistemology or theory of knowledge.

Okay, I looked epistemology up on wikipedia...it gives this, among other things

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg/250px-Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg.png

:)

Kind of pretty.

Anyway I had thought it meant the link between the subconscious and the conscious mind so I thought you were wrong, but I guess their definition of it would make it to accurately describe the ideas I'm pursuing. Good.

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, truth, I want to put what I perceive forward: there is no subjective truth or objective truth.


What you after perhaps is a OMNIJECTIVE truth.

Even this is correct there is subjective and objective elements to it.

"Holographic Principles" of Physicist David Bohm seems to suggest such a Truth might exist...but early days yet.



Truth is one, indivisibly one, integrally one. It can not be subjective or objective. I believe truth can not be a subject of rationalization at all.


I think you have missed the point.

Subjective Truth is something we can never agree on.

Objective Truth we can.

[Etienne]

I'm sorry, but I have to discard this entirely. Learning and education are good, and we can talk about that, but I find it arbitrary to say that someone must read certain things to engage "real discussions" on the subject. Anything is possible-- someone could understand the issues intuitively.

You're right, if you want to do "salon philosophy", but if you are really interested in the subject and not just philosophizing for the fun of it, then it is pointless to base yourself only on your intuition.


Someone could write a book of philosophy, having only read ancient works, and if it was 2000+ years ahead of its time, then it would have surpassed all the moderns.

What kind of argument is this? We could agree that one can become a genial astrophysicist by reading only Aristotle and Ptolemy?


Now, I agree with you and I know that education is a must for engaging in real discussion, but I just disagree that it must be education of modern or contemporaries.

If you want to discuss a certain problem, it is a must to read contemporary writings about that particular problem, because most of the time they will take older writings and push them further in one way or another and offer different views on the subject, they are in fact a development. If you start from an older writing, it is very probable than what you are saying has already been though about and there is documentation this certain path, and most probably too, it will go farther then what you thought.

But again, in this particular discussion, it was mysticism anyways, not philosophy, so your argument is proved wrong by this fact.


Okay, I looked epistemology up on wikipedia...it gives this, among other things

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg/250px-Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg.png


Kind of pretty.

Hmm yes? This only says that knowledge is when belief meets truth, but then this doesn't say much about what is truth. Saying that what Plato and Aristotle said is bleak of any value is false, however what they have said that is still applicable is merely a small part of what modern philosophy is. Ancient philosophy to modern philosophy is very comparable to what the Physic of the ancients can be to modern physic, except that academical philosophy is more interested in the historical aspect of it's discipline.

basically, I am not saying one should not read about the ancients or mysticism, on the contrary, but to seriously engage in a research, one must read what has been said about the subject, and ideally somewhat larger than the subject. For example, reading about philosophy of language would be a great asset. But again, I am not criticizing the discussion in itself if it only wants to be salon philosophy discussion, I am only saying that if one seriously wants to augment his knowledge about the particular problem, one has to turn up his sleeves and read, read, read.

[B-Mental]

I will ring a resounding cowbell upon this thread...I love it...let me just continue to read sage advice. And yes the diagram above is pretty....pretty cool, and is inspirational. B

[jon1jt]

Practice life, my brother, live live live.

[B-Mental]

Wootie woot woot jon....B

[Etienne]

Practice life, my brother, live live live.

I see we have a beatnik :p

[Tuninks]

The truth is mortality. We are mortal and if you are to ask yourself any question it is this. "Have you had a good run?" Every man and woman looks back on their lives and asks themselves if they have left their "footprints on the sands of time." If you wish for the truth, ask yourself this my friend... Have you had a good life up to this point?

To ask what life is, look inward for that answer. Life is how you as the individual defines it. No other worldly creature can give a better answer other than yourself. My definition of life is, "The time in which a metaphysical energy, a soul, gains experience in the physical realm. Then, upon shedding the mortal coil, joins the cosmos to share what it has learned with a higher consciousness."

And so I must ask you, what do you define it as?

[NikolaiI]

You're right, if you want to do "salon philosophy", but if you are really interested in the subject and not just philosophizing for the fun of it, then it is pointless to base yourself only on your intuition.

What kind of argument is this? We could agree that one can become a genial astrophysicist by reading only Aristotle and Ptolemy?

If you want to discuss a certain problem, it is a must to read contemporary writings about that particular problem, because most of the time they will take older writings and push them further in one way or another and offer different views on the subject, they are in fact a development. If you start from an older writing, it is very probable than what you are saying has already been though about and there is documentation this certain path, and most probably too, it will go farther then what you thought.

But again, in this particular discussion, it was mysticism anyways, not philosophy, so your argument is proved wrong by this fact.

Hmm yes? This only says that knowledge is when belief meets truth, but then this doesn't say much about what is truth. Saying that what Plato and Aristotle said is bleak of any value is false, however what they have said that is still applicable is merely a small part of what modern philosophy is. Ancient philosophy to modern philosophy is very comparable to what the Physic of the ancients can be to modern physic, except that academical philosophy is more interested in the historical aspect of it's discipline.

basically, I am not saying one should not read about the ancients or mysticism, on the contrary, but to seriously engage in a research, one must read what has been said about the subject, and ideally somewhat larger than the subject. For example, reading about philosophy of language would be a great asset. But again, I am not criticizing the discussion in itself if it only wants to be salon philosophy discussion, I am only saying that if one seriously wants to augment his knowledge about the particular problem, one has to turn up his sleeves and read, read, read.

No, no...we're not communicating very well. This isn't important, but I didn't put that picture up to show something...I mean, it's ridiculous to explain, but you responded as if I meant something by it...I wasn't...trying to say anything by putting it there, not saying what was in it. I mean, I was talking about epistemology when I put it up there...you remember, I said "I thought epistemology was... but apparently it is... and you were right about it," etc.

As to the rest of it... you know, it is what it is. Sometimes someone writes something that inspires others, and they think it's intelligent or advanced, other times someone writes something that is not intelligible, and of course there are infinite other qualities to infinite possible writings.

Anyway I honestly believe that philosophy if communicated correctly can always be shortened to a single notion. We can't ever write down a moment, or let's say a sentence, in a single instant, yet a fully enlightened moment contains all knowledge. Perhaps this is because the highest truth is not something new to learn, but simply something already there that only needs to be revealed in a certain way. And...about contemporary or modern treatments of subjects, I'm sorry if I just don't rate it too highly. It takes many, many qualities for something to be worthwhile, to be worthwhile in every respect. But, I am not closed off or anything. I'm more than happy to exchange sources. Can you tell me a good one for philosophy of language? I will look into it. Do you like Jaspers? I think his philosophy is especially elucidating.

[Etienne]

No, no...we're not communicating very well. This isn't important, but I didn't put that picture up to show something...I mean, it's ridiculous to explain, but you responded as if I meant something by it...I wasn't...trying to say anything by putting it there, not saying what was in it. I mean, I was talking about epistemology when I put it up there...you remember, I said "I thought epistemology was... but apparently it is... and you were right about it," etc.

Alright, my apologies.


Anyway I honestly believe that philosophy if communicated correctly can always be shortened to a single notion. We can't ever write down a moment, or let's say a sentence, in a single instant, yet a fully enlightened moment contains all knowledge. Perhaps this is because the highest truth is not something new to learn, but simply something already there that only needs to be revealed in a certain way. And...about contemporary or modern treatments of subjects, I'm sorry if I just don't rate it too highly. It takes many, many qualities for something to be worthwhile, to be worthwhile in every respect. But, I am not closed off or anything. I'm more than happy to exchange sources. Can you tell me a good one for philosophy of language? I will look into it. Do you like Jaspers? I think his philosophy is especially elucidating.

The subject is very vast, Kant, Russel, Wittgenstein, Popper, are some of the names I can throw here, although I'm not particularly well-versed in this problem and I do not know the more actual philosophers that discuss particularly about this problem. I unfortunately do not know Jaspers (beside vaguely by his name) I might very well read him, what book do you suggest?

[NikolaiI]

Ah, thank you for those names. I recommend "Way To Wisdom," I think it's from his other writings.

[crazefest456]

Alright, my apologies.



The subject is very vast, Kant, Russel, Wittgenstein, Popper, are some of the names I can throw here, although I'm not particularly well-versed in this problem and I do not know the more actual philosophers that discuss particularly about this problem. I unfortunately do not know Jaspers (beside vaguely by his name) I might very well read him, what book do you suggest?

May I step in? This has not much to do with epistemology, but, I can't resist:
I did a research paper on Slavoj Zizek's (a big celebrity in the philosophy world, nowadays...he was a guest lectern in University of Chicago three years ago) theories about the Real, and their correlation with current events. That lead me to Kant, Hegel, and Lacan...
So Hegel used the Kantian reasoning to form his triads (Basically the venn diagram, with one more circle) of reason. And Lacan used his (uber-gross:blush: ) psychoanalysis of *ehm* intimate relationships (why s&m occurs...etc..he was basically a descendent of freudian psychoanalysis), and formulated his theories of the Real...
And Zizek used these theories and fit into a very minimalistic, yet powerful triad explaining the different facets of the Real.

Here's an excerpt from Zizek's Tarrying With the Negative:

178: "The triad Imaginary-Real-Symbolic renders the fundamental coordinates of the Lacanian theoretical space; but these three dimensions can never be conceived simultaneously, in pure synchronicity, i.e., one is always forced to choose one pair at a time (as with Kierkegaard's triad of the aesthetical-ethical-religious): the Symbolic versus the Imaginary, the Real versus the Symbolic. The hitherto predominating interpretations of Lacan tended to accent either the axis Imaginary-Symbolic (symbolization, symbolic realization, against imaginary self-deception in the Lacan of the fifties) or the axis Symbolic-Real (the traumatic encounter of the Real as the point at which symbolization fails in the late Lacan). What Boothby offers as a key to the entire Lacanian theoretical edifice is simply the third, not yet exploited axis: the Imaginary versus the Real. That is to say /.../ the theory of the mirror-stage /.../ designates also the original fact which defines the status of man: the alienation in the mirror image, due to man's premature birth and his/her helplessness in the first years of life /.../ it introduces an irreducible béance, gap, separating forever the imaginary ego – the wholesome yet immobile mirror image, a kind of halted cinematic picture – from the polymorphous, chaotic sprout of bodily drives – the real Id. From this perspective, the Symbolic is of a strictly secondary nature with regard to the original tension between the Imaginary and the Real: its place is the void opened up by the exklusion of the polymorphous wealth of bodily drives. /.../ it is therefore a kind of compromise formation by way of which the subject integrates fragments of the ostracized Real."

Here's a diagram I made to go with it!
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii224/crazefest456/real.jpg


My teacher wrote on one of my t-shirts, "Lacan is my demigod"

[jon1jt]

I see we have a beatnik :p


Me? But...but...I went to Catholic School, once, and carried the cross and candles in mass. :lol:

[dramasnot6]

Me? But...but...I went to Catholic School, once, and carried the cross and candles in mass. :lol:

:lol: I see your conservative childhood influences continue to impact all of your words and work!

[Etienne]

An influence by antinomy is still an influence, you know!

[imthefoolonthehill]

searching for truth?

let theta be greater than zero.

[blazeofglory]

:lol: I see your conservative childhood influences continue to impact all of your words and work!

Yes to a greater extent if not to the whole extent. In fact I am so much deeply appended to what I was told or had undergone in my childhood.

I can not sneak out of it.