Trevor Salyzyn wrote:At some time you might have to choose between enlightenment and philosophy.
What do you mean? I'd like to be both enlightened and to study philosophy. To me, enlightenment would allow me to better understand things like philosophy etc.
I see a wall and it's white. I see a white mattress. Although the wall and the mattress are their own separate things, the shared "whiteness" is a Form. Also, the wallness is shared by all walls, and the mattressness is shared by all mattresses.
Blue pants and the sky - Form: blueness. Lava and the sun - Forms: brightness, hotness, yellowness or/and orangeness. River and mist - Form: waterness.
So is a Form anything that two or more objects/appearances have in common? Something/anything shared between objects, in other words.
I don't understand why Plato imagined a world full of these Forms. Did he really believe such a world existed? Or was it more of a mental experiment of sorts to better understand reality/this world?
You can study philosophy and never become enlightened, just as you can become enlightened and never study philosophy. Making enlightenment the purpose of studying philosophy might disappoint you, if it comes down to a choice between one or the other.
So is a Form anything that two or more objects/appearances have in common? Something/anything shared between objects, in other words.
The modern word for these abstractions is "universals", if you want to compare Plato's Forms to what other philosophers had to say.
I don't understand why Plato imagined a world full of these Forms. Did he really believe such a world existed?
I have no idea whether he really believed in his theory.
The original (still unanswered) question of this thread is: can people change? I mentioned that life can change people. But does it really? What examples have you seen of this change? Personally, I think it's possible that an esteemed professor or Nobel Prize winner can become a homeless person on the street under the right (or more like wrong) causal events/circumstances/experiences. However, there probably aren't many examples of this happening. Now, focusing on the positive side, I'd like to believe that an old homeless drunk, someone who has been homeless and drinking for years, can still, if there is a will, become a well respected professor of whichever subject area he desires. By no means do I think this will be easy, but I believe that it is doable/attainable.
This is why I'm going to be experimenting on myself and I'm hoping I'll prove that not only can I change but that virtually anyone can change as well. It's pretty obvious we can but to what extent? At the beginning of 2012 I shall study many subjects such as philosophy, computers/programming, mathematics and the sciences (physics, chemistry, etc). And I shall also take better care of myself and start engaging in various forms of exercise. Supplements in addition to a healthy diet will also come in handy in making me feel better and more motivated. I have complete faith this will work.
I don't understand why but I feel like I'm going to wake up on the first day of the New Year transformed. My old and lively self again! It'll be like waking up out of a two year coma, refreshed and recuperated, ready for whatever life throws at me. Man, things will be great! I know it.
Things I've already done this year: quit smoking and drinking alcohol, started reading Men's Health magazine and other things which will help me with my goal/s, and bought several study materials such as books etc. Everything is pretty much all set.
Question for everyone: do you have any New Year resolutions? Tell me about them. Also, if you've ever changed/bettered yourself in anyway, what happened and how did this change occur? Thanks!
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:You can study philosophy and never become enlightened, just as you can become enlightened and never study philosophy. Making enlightenment the purpose of studying philosophy might disappoint you, if it comes down to a choice between one or the other.
Okay, I see. What is enlightenment in the general sense that philosophers use it? Is the definition "enlightenment is consciousness without delusion" a compatible/accurate definition? Is it even possible according to this definition to be enlightened? Someone once said that every person is deluded to some extent. Not sure what that meant.
The modern word for these abstractions is "universals", if you want to compare Plato's Forms to what other philosophers had to say.
Thanks! I've read a bit about Plato's Forms (or Ideas) on Wikipedia. I've seen the term "Ultimate Reality" being used on these forums, so when I saw this term in a book I have, it sparked my interest.
There's freewill AND there's casualty. Freewill: the ability to make choices. Causality: everything is caused. The two, to me, are compatible with one another and can co-exist in the same world. That's just my take on it. Feel free to correct me.
By the way, why did/do you think I'm a troll? No matter which forum you go to on the Internet there is always someone calling someone else a troll. I suppose even mentally healthy people can get paranoid.
Luke Space wrote:What is enlightenment in the general sense that philosophers use it?
I don't believe there is a general sense of the word. Kant wrote an essay on enlightenment, but it's hardly a consensus opinion. Michel Foucault famously replied, but I don't particularly enjoy reading Foucault. Neither of those philosophers mean what Buddhists mean. What more, not all Buddhists agree on what the Buddha meant.
Is the definition "enlightenment is consciousness without delusion" a compatible/accurate definition?
There's no such thing as accuracy of definition. Words are fluid, and enlightenment can mean a lot of different things. Is consciousness without delusion a good thing, or a bad thing?
Is it even possible according to this definition to be enlightened?
It doesn't matter how possible it is, if it's not valuable. And if it is valuable, then it doesn't matter if it's impossible. Even if everyone says it's impossible, you'll still have to check for yourself.
Someone once said that every person is deluded to some extent. Not sure what that meant.
It means that everyone has false beliefs. Is this true?
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Kant wrote an essay on enlightenment, but it's hardly a consensus opinion. Michel Foucault famously replied, but I don't particularly enjoy reading Foucault.
Thanks. I'll definitely read those.
Neither of those philosophers mean what Buddhists mean. What more, not all Buddhists agree on what the Buddha meant.
So how can anyone know what enlightenment really is? I've read somewhere that even the Buddha himself said he was unenlightened.
Is consciousness without delusion a good thing, or a bad thing?
I think it's a good thing because then the world is seen accurately. However, I suppose making kids believe in Santa Clause, for instance, is also a good thing because it brings joy into their lives, but at this stage in my life, I'd like to see the world the way it is, without any false beliefs.
It means that everyone has false beliefs. Is this true?
I do not know if everyone has false beliefs. But I can speak for myself and say that I think I don't have any false beliefs. If, however, I do then I'd like to deal with them promptly.
We make choices all the time. Examples: when you wake up in the morning do you not choose what you're going to do next? When you go into the kitchen do you not choose what you're going to eat? When you go to school have you not chosen what subjects you're going to be learning? Etc etc etc.
Luke Space wrote: when you wake up in the morning do you not choose what you're going to do next? When you go into the kitchen do you not choose what you're going to eat?
When you get into a car do you not choose that you will never be in an accident?
Blair wrote:When you get into a car do you not choose that you will never be in an accident?
Good point. But I think most motorists get into a car "choosing" I won't be in an accident this time. At least I would hope they do. Thinking I never will is what causes accidents.
Luke Space wrote:I bought the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche. Have any of you read it? What did you think of it?
He 'was' a homosexual in his teens. Also a hand pumper. He was a teen hooker in the bath houses. He was both pitcher and catcher. His was mainly to pursue homosexual men and boys, semi-pedophile as there were no social norms on what society put up with as far as when a child entered adulthood and when parents let children leave the family nest. The government-that-be at the time was lax enforcement of child labor laws so people looked the other way on sexual haberdashery . He found himself stuck between a boy-child and man-child world never forming a clear conscience of right vs. wrong way the 'normals' would find a glidepath via 'normal' parents who had better parental control of morality issues cropping up. Never made it with a woman the clean way, at least. Also, enjoyed women shitting on him and rubbing their excrement all over himself.
His writing was from the "gay view" of life prolly why the reader found him (and still do) perplexing in many ways.
On a side note, two of Hitler's "girlfriends" committed suicide because of his 'peculiar' sexual deviances. The butt fucking (shitting on him, excrement doo-doo dalliances) instead of 'normal' vaginal intercourse.
Luke Space wrote:Well, you can choose to be careful while driving. That will increase the possibility of you never getting in an accident.
You can be as careful as you like whilst driving, does that guarantee that you will never be in an accident, perhaps even a fatal one?
Think about it honestly, the answer is no.
You are spellbound by the illusion that causality and free will exist side-by-side because sometimes what you expect and want will transpire, ie. be in alignment with causality. You won't notice it, it blips by at the speed of thought.
Needless to say, all the thoughts you are having are caused. There is no boundary between the caused and the uncaused, it only seems that way because your mind is conditioned to segregate.
Seems that free will is conciousness, realising your existence and attributing behaviours to yourself. A start point to an end point, think closed system statistical mechanics.
Luke Space wrote:So how can anyone know what enlightenment really is?
Ultimately, you will have to decide what enlightenment means in the first place. Is it clear recollection of past lives, a drunken epiphany, or a series of logical discoveries?
I bought the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche. Have any of you read it? What did you think of it?
It's a parody of Zoroastrian religions -- in particular Christianity -- and appeals to one's sense of fear and disgust with the world that these religions created. He believed mankind is separated into masters and slaves. Christianity is religion for slaves. On the other hand, Nietzsche promoted the "master" virtues, which he viewed as healthier. The nearly explicit assumption is that if you disagree with Nietzsche, you are a slave, and his words are not meant for you.
I definitely, DEFINITELY accept Trevor's version over Tomas's. Except I'd add a couple of important things. But first, a.commentary. Did you by chance see the film A Serious Man by the Cohn Brothers? If you did you'll remember that there is a refrain from a 60s song that runs through it: "When the truth is found to be lies / and all the joy within you dies." (Jefferson Airplane). Nietzshe's work is not simply the exposure of Christianity to the acid of truth, the lifting of the lid off of the falsely-based belief system and forcing people to look, it is a statement that following the internal logic of such (Christian) truth-seeking ("The truth shall set you free") must lead one to the 'death of God' and to voluntary involvement in the 'crucifixion' of that God ("God is dead AND WE KILLED HIM"). We 'killed' him because we sought the truth about him, thus we penetrated the shrouding myth that is Christianity: a fable, a child's fantasy (ie slave religion). To arrive at this understanding is therefor a concommitant of the religion itself, a predictable outcome. And so "When the truth is found to be lies...all the joy within you dies" and you enter into that landscape of death called nihilism. A dangerous and trecherous territory where 'all that is solid vanishes into thin air'. Nietzsche saw himself (and it follows in the JA song) offering to cruelly confused men a way to surmount this nihilism and not to self-destruct in it. So TSZ is a sort of Manual for one who wishes to take the next step and overcome the terrible condition of nihilism.
Along these lines I wish to suggest (for learning purppses) that in general this GF is a place where the voices of the dead speak, cry, moan, go crazy, unleash the internal rage at their.failure to overco.e this.nihilism that plays so terribly rough
That is why I always try to point out that 'you' have to look very carefully at the internal, determining structure of what each of the Preachers who logs on here has to say. I suggest that they do not even approach 'overcoming' in the Nietzschean sense (they have no idea what it is!) but remain trapped in various predictable quagmires which they represent ('sell') as solution. I mean of course the QRS principally, and so many of the minor prophets who show up here.
No one here EVER talks about the sort of 'overcoming'the Nietzsche wrote of. How could they? It is unrecognizable to them! What they seem to talk about is...the inside of the little burrow they've dug out for themselves, and those late November walls one which they watch flicker the fading play of light...(See: Kafka, 'The Burrow').
Talking Ass wrote:No one here EVER talks about the sort of 'overcoming'the Nietzsche wrote of. How could they? It is unrecognizable to them! What they seem to talk about is...the inside of the little burrow they've dug out for themselves, and those late November walls one which they watch flicker the fading play of light...(See: Kafka, 'The Burrow').
You fail to realize that I've gone beyond Nietzsche, TA. Which is quite understandable. And not only that, unlike Nietzsche, I continue to be able to maintain my sanity. Freud once remarked that he felt Nietzsche had a more deeply penetrating insight into himself than any man who ever lived or who may come to live. This would be true were it not for myself.
Can you find that quote by Freud? I think I read it second hand in Jung's essay on Freud. But since you are the quote-maven I thought you might be able to locate it.
I tend to believe that Nietzsche was really on to something, I mean in recognizing the sickness of the age and pointing to the 'solution'. I tend to agree with Diebert---that voice of one crying in the wilderness---that his health issues may have been, as will happen to everyone in different ways, a failure of his physical instrument. He was never that strong to begin with. I am not convinced that his 'insanity' says anything in pro or in contra of his ideas. I also tend to feel that Nietzsche did not have a way of perceiving and understanding 'divinity', and I mean this at a much more fundamental level: the ways that divinity manifests in human consciousness. That is, I feel, a big component of being able to propose a 'solution' to crippling, mind-bending nihilism.
This would be true were it not for The Talking Ass ®.
I corrected what you'd written and believe I improved it substantially. ;-)
No, I don't 'geddit' and, as you know, I take ideas and concepts about 'reality' as things that compare with 'real things'. They are of a different order but no less real.
You would have to be able to reduce all of existence, our existing, to some sort of 'semantic web', but you cannot. Is it a semantic misapprehension then that we exist, have bodies? If there is a solid, factual (ie non-semantic) platform to our existence, where and what is it? Please speak about that.
What I think that you do, what you seem to desire to do, is to remodel 'meaning' and declare another, alternate value: it is empty and meaningless, etc. It is too easy as I see things to do this, to declare this formula, but that is why it is attractive to you (I think). It would be one thing, I suppose, if you just declared this *neutrally* like a robotical parrot. But I do not see that your use of this idea, nor that of the Zen-people, as being, in fact, devoid of meaning. There is as I see things a certain hypocricy in your position. Your use of this idea reminds me often of ressentiment in the Nietzschean sense: a weak, powerless man's weilding of an idea (with no moving parts). God knows, you might be able to 'conquer the world' with it... ;-)
So, while it is true that 'nihilism' is intimately bound to concepts, those concepts are similarly bound or perhaps one would say 'embedded', in our physical selves. They arise within those (real) structures. In this way, we do not get anywhere or progress anywhere except (I assume) with our whole being, and that includes the base-physical and many different levels of epiphenomena. And by this I believe that we don't 'mystically escape' from the facts of our existence, or where our ideas have led us. I aslo do not believe that the 'Zen Manoeuvre ' is a valid one. I also mean that I don't think it is a beautiful and a good one...
Your use of it seems 'ugly' to me.
But your idea is not unintelligible to me, so in that sense (having read your idea-poems if you'll permit the term) I 'geddit'. But I do not geddit as an assertable or definite truth. As you know, I think you are quite a bit off the mark and away from 'truth', except insofar as you deal on 'partial truths'. To be remotely intelligible there has to be some *element* of truth in your claim. Where we may have some common ground, though, is in sensing or proposing that we may, individually and perhaps collectively, need to forge new means and methods of organizing our perception of who and what we are, where we are, and how we define *meanings* about that. But as you know I generally speaking reject your tools and the outcomes of the use of your tools as 'reductive'.
I am also going to give you a warning: If you write in clear, sensible prose and take your responses seriously, I will make every effort to respond to you. I am sorry to put it to you like this. One slip up and I am sincere in saying I will stop communicating with you, permanently.
Try to gain a sense if communication between the two of us is really worth the effort. I am not at all convinced that it is, myself.
Don't be a fucking troll, Dennis (I mean in relation to my postings). ;-)
_________________________________________
Thomas Transtromer wrote:
"I am the place / where creation is working itself out..."
