Socratic and Platonic philosophies - Page 2

wizard, you're a poet. Your words are mesmerizing!

I'm on lesson 6 and I already have a lot to say about it. One thing in particular that kept coming into my mind was that this world isn't an illusion, yet, a very small part of a greater entity that we make up. Finding out what we are made up of only proves what I just said. Think about it... we could be part of some greater entity's mind! The possibilities are honestly endless. But how do we transcend from what we are to the next entity??? Is there an answer for that? Seeing the 4th dimension? I don't know if we have the capabilities to truly see it. I just know that any war is bullshit, we are in a sense harming the greater entity! If we all got along and did what we knew was right, we would be better use to what we make up! I know I sound excited but I'm just amazed at what I've learned. These lessons are truly magic!

I'm sorry about all the replies, but I just finished reading a paragraph... and WOW!!! The possibility that whatever the greater entity's intentions are, dictates what we see as the world, thereby MAKING us function to it. An unbelievable concept. My mind is forever changed.

I MUST HAVE LESSON 7!!!

I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I've been running around all day...Well, I AM truly relieved that you GET IT...Cool!...The whole purpose of the paper is to actually transform someone's thinking, someone's mind...As far as Lesson Seven, well, it's still under wraps...I'm trying to make it as clear and concise as possible...as soon as I feel confident with it you'll be one of the first to get a look at it, I promise...You think it will go over well in class?...Let someone else you know who might see things as you do read it...See if they GET IT as well...Thanks for validating my strange thought process, though...It's not so hard to understand is it?...Most people try to make it more complicated than it really is...and I really think it makes sense, despite how crazy as it all sounds..

Yah, I really enjoyed it. An interesting logical deduction of what the 4th dimension is. I wish I knew someone who was as interested in this stuff as I am, I don't. If I ever do find someone who is interested though, I'll be sure to recommend they read it.

I don't want to be patronising - you are after all a lot older than me - but... is this serious? Like most bombastic things, this is interesting, and you deserve to be applauded for that. You obviously keep the old grey matter on the go, which is sadly quite unusual in these intellectually impoverished times. The problem is that vigour isn't matched by rigour, and, most odiously, your whole thesis rests on the altogether flimsy basis of a kind of Platonic Mysticism. Did you ever consider non-euclidian geomety? Did you ever consider that the space-time continuum is outdated? Most damaging of all, isn't it logically inconsistent to start off with a premiss about the illusory nature of perceptions and then proceed to postulate their unity? I think the problem is essentially a linguistic one here. It is indeed right to say that Kant revealed sense-datum (and therefore space and time) to be, at bottom, mere appearance, but we we must bear in mind that translations are always pregnant with conceptual infelicities, not least when the subject is hellishly abstruse German philosophy. We have to remember the Empirical notions implicit in Kant: space and time are EXIST the sense that anything can be said to EXIST. They are only
illusory insofar as we believe these conceptions to be the complete, to be, as Kant called it, THINGS IN THEMSELVES. Obviously, this is a departure from Empiricsm: it entails the claim that there is a realm of things which lie ineluctably beyond the perception and apprehension of mortal beings. And, of course, this is a variant of Neo-platonism, as you correctly identified. In this view, the world as we know it is conditioned by its relationship to US, the SUBJECTS. We are biologically callibrated to respond to sense-data in certain ways, meaning that 'reality', the THING IN ITSELF, can never be truly known. Since we are contingent beings, rooted in a certain context and unable to view the world sub specie aeternatatis, our knowledge must remain paltry and slight.

Neo-platonism is a bumptious mysticism, seized upon by the cynical and exalted by the profligate. In short, it claims that we are able to transcend our circumstantial limitations and shake off our existential fetters by an appeal to some non-deducible but all-pervasive force, some unspecified ethereal substance. It is reckoned to be the elan vital of the universe, the
divine force which subsumes space and time under its magical dominion: sometimes it is said to be the summit of an eternal hierarchy (Plotinus) sometimes the mind of God (Spinoza etc), sometimes a determinate, logically symmetrical system (Newton)... all you've done is call it a Dimension. Oddly, you've done this by pointing out the sometimes contradictory nature of percpetions. Here is your argument in a nutshell:
1) We understand the world by positing the existence of space and time, under the laws of which we expect all phenomena in the universe to conform
2) Yet, under a system governed by these conceptual constaints, contradictions occur; the system is not fully determinate
THEREFORE:
3) There must be another Dimension, one which brings Space and Time into a proper, logically consistent union.

I'll end by pointing out that, apart from the patent flaws endgendered in much of your reasoning, a Dimension cannot rule supreme over all th other dimensions - that wouldn't make sense. What your thesis argues for is not FOUR dimensions but ONE. Sorry for this rather compressed
exegesis, but I just thought I'd try and provide to provide a cogent response to you efforts. I hope I don't provoke your wrath or downheart you - what I'd like, in fact, is for you to launch a whole-hearted riposte to my criticisms.

My conclusion? Wrong - but good.

wtf wittgensteins, ur flipping crazy, do you eat wheaties every morning or something?

LOL!...I like you, Kid...But, honestly, I'm probably in alot better shape than you--physically and mentally--and I probably don't look much older...Alas! It's my curse. But I do like your argument against the idea of one (or NO) dimensions. I believe in NO dimensions, actually. And, yes, it is all mysticism, a position I've lived in since I was only 15 (which has probably kept me very well preserved). It is my ultimate belief that the the entire universe, past, present and future, exists not "outside us," but within us--everything, even you, exists within this vast universe of space and time within my consciousness. I believe that I can descend deep within myself to specific points of space and time within me to find anything that has and will ever exist, and affect it in ways of my own chooosing, even people. I believe that the human mind can affect matter, because matter is just as metaphysical as the mind. I believe all these things and have seen their truths first-hand. I wouldn't expect anyone like you to even begin to "absorb" such ideas. I've always said that in order to learn something new one must first strip away all beliefs and preconceptions. Some people aren't strong enough to do that. Oh, well. I appreciate your thoughts, but they do nothing to shake my position, and I saw no valid arguments against it in your post.

This response is a tragic cocktail of hostility and charlatanism. You leave unimpugned the most salient parts of my argument, and your thinly veiled
jibes, since you know absolutely nothing about me, are as baseless and speculative as your thoroughly nebulous "philosophy". You seem to be proud of your mysticism, but surely this is the death of philosophy? How can you argue something if it is beyond reason, and, if you can't, how can you be sure that your ideas are not just arbitrary fantasies? And yes, one dimension is, to all extents and purposes, the same as none. Since my method was reductio ad absurdum, it would be missing the point to say that I've rendered your position incomplete. My point is that the position itself is untenable.

Oh. Sorry, I don't get online much. I didn't think you'd bother to respond....Hostility?..Lol!...No, not hostility. Hostility from me would be much more biting. Although I find your arguments interesting, for me they seem too full of psuedo-intellectual jargin designed to project intelligence. That's not to say that I don't believe you are intelligent. I'm sure you are, no doubt about that. I can see that on my screen. As for philosophy, as far as I'm concerned "it is dead" since there are too many perspectives and too many "philosophers" trying to unravel mysteries that are much more simple than they seem. Too bad. If the answers that philosphers seek can actually be answered, then there would be only one answer for each question, and maybe there is only one question. Who can say? And, whether you agree with my answers is not my concern. Whether my answers are delusional I cannot say, but there is only one reality that exists, and that is my own. If you possess consciousness, then you are well aware of that fact. Each of us are alone in the universe, and what I believe is reality for me and only valid and reasonable refutations of my own thinking can change that (and, believe it or not, that has actually happened with those alot more intelligent than you or I). It's OK, though. I have learned that I cannot change the thinking of others unless their psyches have not yet formed a center of gravity wherein unshakable positions leave no room for open-mindedness. But I'm sure your system of thought will change in subtle yet profound ways. After all, your still very young and the human mind continues to change and grow throughout the course of life. And it's an exciting thing when a mind is willing to strip itself of all ego, of all preconception and opinion, allowing the absorption of numerous and varied perspectives. I know. I went through that myself. Anyway, I know you think I have not taken your thoughts against my own into consideration, but I've heard similar arguments before and they still do not sway me. These arguments often attempt to attack my logic with positions that I feel are dogmatic and, thus, illogical. I only know what works for me, and that's good enough for now. And if I am a charlatan, then I am one only to myself. I'm not concerned with whether I can sway anyone to my way of thinking. All I ever ask of people is their impressions and feedback, and hopefully, valid arguments against my own. I very rarely get that. And, your right, I do not know you. That would take alot more time and effort than I'm willing to invest, but it was nice seeing your mind expressed as electronic impulses projected on a screen in the form of words. Truly interesting. Thank you.

I've scanned very briefly the papers. I have a better idea than reading them. I've got a general vague guess of what your getting at so I'm going to state what I think, purely speculative, light and fluffy stuff at the moment. Then I'll read it, analyse and think some more. Keeps it less restrictive for starters.

Is the earth still going to orbit the sun tommorrow, is it going to rain here in the UK tomorrow?

1. If tommorow comes- almost certain.
2. Given our past the earth will orbit the sun.
3. Given its the UK -highly likely

So, what did I decide this on? Well mostly experience. Secondly, faith in scientific information and knowledge, ultimately the evolution of thought communicated to me.

Do I see certain things of myself that I see in someone else? Yes, but i also see things that I don't have. Who's the me seeing these things? Is that person not a projection of myself? Lets assume not. Lets assume he's 'out there'. That person then sees me. He gets a perception. We both live in our worlds of partial truth and partial illusion or delusion

Understanding between the two parties brings them closer together. It is the void of understanding that keeps things apart. So, if I am me, right here, the me changes anyway. After all, I'm a collection of particles that change, I get fat, I get skinny, I get old: I change. Therefore whatever is materially me changes. So if everything includes material mass generating space then the precise bit where my fingers end (ok-not actually there, but 1m away isnt me) right now is very different from the colour of my finger (its air by the way) and it doesnt feel as connected. Therefore if a+b+c+d+e+f = g and a itself is seperated then naturally the flow of seperates is still existent on the left hand side even if you wish to just look at the right hand side of things.

Obvious? Yes; lets keep it that way. What I keep thinking is determinism. Everything i sconnected but disconnected by different aspects at different levels. A greater mind sees more the conections (and disconnections) at more levels too than a lesser one. Thus, the ultimate mind is everything. Its determinism. But the lesser minds are fragments of the whole serving a purpose which I dont know and competing amongst things more relative to that level. This is the level us humans are at. in order to prove to me the jump that everything is connected the logical steps of connection must be put in place first. A jump of faith is fine and to the person it may make sense, but for reason the steps must be stated. Einstein didnt get E=mc2 straight away; Rome wasn't built in a day. To use current science, the strict authoritarians stick by observable phenomena; the daring ones, smart ones, and whacky ones go with quanta effects. Great things: never the two shall meet. Give me a premise where the quantum foam stuff and the everday observables and the massives meet and we have done with the material age and we can start scratching away at deeper stuff. I can see where your coming from in this; but for grounding; for academic pursuits; we need logic, reason and maths...even if these are lesser things; we need to master these first.

The amazing thing is we can comprehend stuff. And its this that makes me feel we are a thinking thing in a thinking field. Some stuff I see and cant communicate it or cant mathematically communicate it cause I dont know enough. So, greatness in this life is not about self discovery absolutely but in recognising you gotta take the right stuff to give back something profitable (like inventing a toilet). Thats good philosophy there.

heyjme: I don't know if you think it's clever to be vague and elusive, but I think I'm right in saying that most people don't give your posts anything more than a salutary skim. In an attempt to bedeck your ideas with flowers, you bury them in soil, and never give them the light of day. What are you trying to hide? A general paucity of ideas? Come on, I want to see some fire!

WizardsLogic: How presumptuous can you get? An ostensibly good-natured response is potted with unwarranted assumptions, namely regarding my close-mindedness (meaning my non-exposure to drugs and all things psychadelic is my guess) and the limits of my intelligence. These things I won't stoop to countering: a knowing smile will suffice here. What I will say - and this is related anyway - is that the claim that my response to your ramblings is over-packed with "pseudo intellectual jargin" [I think you meant "jargon"] is undeniably ridiculous, and perhaps even scandalous. We are talking philosophy here, right? And philosophy is a technical subject, right? Just checking, because I assumed that I was talking to a serious-minded individual who cared and thought carefully about philosophy, not some lop-sided philistine-mystic with a head that's much too big for his brain. I defy you to find anything that holds up to your analysis. You might learn a thing or two from my vigorous prose style.

I abhor false cleverness as much as you claim to, but the difference is that I inveigh against unnecessary high-faluting out of a sense of integrity, not simply because I've been outwitted by a guy half my age. Like you, however, I do get ratty when I feel that I've been humbled. That's pretty understandable.

I don't claim to have decisively ended the matter - that would be impossible in such a tight space and in so little time - and in fact, the real point of this post is to express my disgust at the sickly, saccharine sweet, and all too presumptuous cast of you mind.

Do I get to sample any of your 'biting' hostility now? Do I get to taste your spleen?

I love your posts wittgenstein! You disputatious son of a bitch.

Sure, eat away--I mean, if you like that kind of stuff. Geez, Witt, I really didn't mean to upset you so. After all, it's just my take on the world. Relax. I do like your literary "witt," though. You're good. Ever think of becoming an editorialist or something? No need to answer. You're probably not in the mood. Oh, well.