Philosophy of love

@RonCdeWeijze,

RonCdeWeijze wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
If that was how my thoughts had formed, I would agree with you and never have said that. However, I assume that there is nothing besides reality and intuition. To realize intuition is one thing we can do, and develop our personality around, mainly by trial and error, while to intuit reality is the other thing, not by trial and error but from an intuitive source that tells us whether it is good or bad, so that we want to keep- or reject it.
What's the 'Good = Hers' 'Truth = His' thing got to do with that bit?

All I am saying is that there are two basic roles, which if they are combined, can find the first cause of a bond between whichever two people, for life.

Tell me Ron, what does this 'explanation' do apart from replace the words in a description of what actually happens, making them more generalised and therefore of less use?

Two people, two 'roles', the roles combine... well duh.

Cyracuz, in relation to your other thread, the above post is another example of what people do on this forum nowadays: they take phenomena and describe them using different, more generalized, more vague terminology. They then treat this terminology as if it were a 'key' to understanding, because to them it has the appearance of a key; they can enjoy using it as a lens through which to view a multitude of situations. But really, the only reason it has the mobility to be placed on top of so many situations is that it is so vague it doesn't actually say anything at all.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Perhaps it could work in an environment where you are not forced to compete with others to secure your most basic needs in life. The only people who truly benefit from the economic model which dominates the world today are the people who own the banks. They create value and lend it to you for intrest, effectively ensuring that you will seek employment to pay your debts. But as all money is created in banks, and intrest comes on top of all money that is created, the money to pay the intrest does not exist. There is no place to find the extra money you need except to take it from someone else, who also needs it not to get stuck in debt. So it is inevitable that someone loses if someone else wins. This is not a fact of nature, it is a fact of capitalism, and even though it is what goes now, that isn't to say that it is the best we can do.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. Perhaps we should go back in time and tell the Phoenicians.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

...that's Ronspeak for Yin Yang.

Ah, the joy of dividing everything in two.

0 Replies

All relationships between the self and the "other", be it human, animal or inanimate, are asymptotes. We can never become congruent with the other and if we could the other would have nothing to offer us. There is always some fraction of mystery.

The time lapse between meeting the other and the consummation in the traditional courtship is directly proportional (in general---specifics being undiscussable) to the stability of the relationship. A high divorce rate speaks of an impatience.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Yes, PQ.
The more general an explanation becomes, the less acurate. I find that those who seek to explain anything totally independent of already existing ideas face great challenges in producing meaningful ideas. If you wish to challenge current ideas you cannot do so by referring to the philosophy of Plato or some other ancient, not when there are modern philosophers and scientists who have produced much more accurate and relevant work, and have done so not by disregarding Plato, but by expanding on what he started.
Progress in philosophy is made by taking the work of philosophers that have helped to shape our sense of reality and expand on that. The only hope I have of reaching "higher" than any philosopher is to "stand on his shoulders".

Elsewhere I had someone tell me that an idea doesn't exist because it is just an idea.
Now he is in the process of redefining everything else so that his statement becomes true. When people act like this it becomes clear to me that they aren't really interested in learning or expanding their understanding. They are here merely looking for confirmation to their belief that they are smarter than everyone else...

3 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Well...one thing is what they say and another what they meant...on what they meant you can bet there are such schools of thought in philosophy...what they say, these schools, agreing or not is relevant for the debate around central estructural concepts on human knowledge. It may be simply the case that you just never heard of it before...
Fido and he's Narratives and meaning is a good example on such schools...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Agreed, the failure to recognise that shows the level of stupidity before you even read the words of the post.

I reckon quite a lot of people go on the internet to do that.

Yeah, I haven't read that thread yet. Sounds like a pretty one dimensional view of metaphysics..

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The more general an explanation becomes, the less acurate.

I would say the opposite is true. The temperature of a volume of liquid, for example, is a general explanation of its energy state. Any specific molecule might be much more highly energised for brief periods and using it as an explanation would be misleading.

A General Election measures a general feeling. If a specific feeling happened to win I think we might start digging bunkers.

To sit upon this neat metaphor of the volume of liquid, get one's feet in the strirrups, poised on the blocks, raising the axe to chop the last rope holding the ship at the top of the slipway, turning the ignition and lighting the blue touchpaper, and take it for a test flight, resisting the Pindaric temptation to exhaust the realm of it's possibilities, I might imagine womanhood as a collection of molecules with a Boltzmannian distribution of energy levels depending upon the frequencies of their collisions.

Hence I might see that our method of explanation of womanhood's general state is taken from a few highly energised specimens. Being highly energised being a necessary condition for being an explanation sample.

Thus we are being misled. The woman who works in media is highly energised. The man who works in media is likely being controlled by another highly energised female. They give that away in those aspects of their activities in which they talk or write about their daily doings.

And not only are we being misled about general womankind but the misleading itself is acting like a bunsen burner placed beneath the volume of liquid in the flask. It is fulfilling itself and when it does all the women will look, sound and think like those highly energised ladies we see on our TV screens or with their name to a piece of writing usually distinguished by hints, sometimes gratuitous braying, of the wonders of being highly energised.

So here's to the moll and the slag and the slut,
And all the good ladies who stroll by the cut.
Here's to the washing fluttering so gay,
To the pies, to the puddings, to the price we must pay.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I find that those who seek to explain anything totally independent of already existing ideas face great challenges in producing meaningful ideas.

That's the great challenge of all artists. The rival creator. Shakespeare's "only begetter". There needs to be a Creator to be a rival to. The world needn't have been just as The Sonnets needn't have been.

A Creator is implicit to art.

When Matisse finished his paintings in the Chapel of the Rosary in Venice he said, " I did it for myself." When Sister Jacques Marie reminded him that he had said that he was doing it for God he replied "Yes, but I am God."

Strinberg said that Gauguin was a Titan who envies the Creator and in his spare time makes his own little creation.

The "art" of societies with no Creator consists of slogans to worship, to work and to love for the good of the Party.

Quote:

Elsewhere I had someone tell me that an idea doesn't exist because it is just an idea.
Now he is in the process of redefining everything else so that his statement becomes true. When people act like this it becomes clear to me that they aren't really interested in learning or expanding their understanding. They are here merely looking for confirmation to their belief that they are smarter than everyone else...

But he simply made a hypothesis which took his fancy and is seeking to give it substance. That's proper science. The impression you give of him only wanting to be smarter may not be true but just a reflection of your being unable to confute the evidence he offers.

Materialism confutes him. An idea is a physical object. Like the electronics of this when I "Reply".

Ask him does the idea that an idea doesn't exist exist.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

What I have told is what I belive very basic psycology. What you want is a terrible double edge sword.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Let me elaborate.

People who mistake love for wisdom, usually only heed what relates to their inner selfish desires, feelings over rationallity and logic. Which is why you see so many unfaithful people, people who so naively trust authrity figures, or media people with good spindoctor backup, because PR and mass marketing understands how to manipulate naive feelgood based people.

U'll see too many people with great love for 15 min of fame, and will undergo very undignifying behaviour just for mere fame.

This "love is wisdom" is very new to me, and contradicts thousands of years of wisdom, that say love is foolish and stupid, blinds you and makes you do reckless things.

You sound like the emotional based person, which is why you ask the initial question.

0 Replies

@spendius,

One thing is to be certain, your reply´s to many of this non-issues, have the merit of by their natural grace, saving the day on otherwise boring side comments with no foundation whatsoever...keep at it, you are certainly improving the quality of my reading here at A2K !

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

But he simply made a hypothesis which took his fancy and is seeking to give it substance.

Perhaps that's one way of putting it. But at this point the whole thing is a matter of what a few words actually mean. If you eliminate the difference in whats understood by the words existence and meaning, there are many observations that cannot be correctly made. Language, and therefore logic, is about expressing ourselves meaningfully and as completely as possible.
Even if he was using sound logic in trying to show how his reasoning is sound in eliminating the difference in meaning, it would be counterproductive to the very concept of logic. Unless it was in relation to introducing new ideas that would revolutionize how we orient ourselves in space, both physical and psychological. But he hasn't mentioned anything about that.

4 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Is n´t after all the meaning about the function of something ?
Is n´t the object about the specific practical role in which you use it ?
(the ultra-object can have many roles besides the "main" one...)

...It exists for its function, its true, just as much it exist beyond that specificity of that function...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Perhaps he's softening you up Cyr. Leading you gradually, so you don't experience any sudden jolts, to that point where the materialist realises that he's not a materialist after all. He knows that an idea is an object, and thus exists for however fragmentary a moment as itself, for a materialist. He could be testing you to find out how much you, as a materialist, like the idea by taking the opposite tack and having you debate him and proving that ideas exist as non-material entities and thus putting you in a fix when attacking the Church.

Has he shown a philosophical cast of mind before?

BTW-I hadn't forgotten the topic but philosophy does come first as the Stoic said , hurrying past her beaded entrance, to Rodolphe the Thracian. Ian Campbell Ross has a note about her in my copy of Tristram Shandy. Those notes are very useful. As is his introduction. That's the edition to buy. OUP paperback. It pains me when I see copies for sale for £1 and being ignored and within it, for a sodding quid, "love", in a very pretty wordfest.

Rodolphe was a celebrated courtesan, who Heliodorus claimed, as Bob Burton translated him at least, was "so excellent at this dumb Rhetorick [of the eyes], that if she had but looked upon anyone almost (saith Calisiris) she would have bewitched him, and he could not possibly escape it."

The allusion came in Sterne getting fanciful about Widow Wadman's eyes.

My philosophy of love is to patiently allow the lady to reveal herself to herself. Men stand revealed already. As Professor Greer said--"they are like carrots: cheap and plentiful and easily cooked." "They only want one thing" is a constant lyrical comment.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

If you eliminate the difference in whats understood by the words existence and meaning, there are many observations that cannot be correctly made. Language, and therefore logic, is about expressing ourselves meaningfully and as completely as possible.

If you eliminate the difference in what's understood by the words existence and meaning then existence and meaning are one. Are "in love". But the catch is who is doing the understanding. With an understanding that does eliminate the difference, the over-confident scientist say, all observations are correctly made. As with assertions. Other understandings know that there is no chance of the difference being eliminated. It is in the space between existence and the wording of existence, an attempt at meaning, that art occupies. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Picasso gets close with Weeping Woman. And what can one say about Brunnhilde? And into the space comes God.

A world without God is where existence and meaning do coalesce like in Ikea instructions for self-assemble bunk bed units.

1 Reply

@spendius,

...I love that Ikea stuff in your writing Spendy...you always have the right dose answer for the given question at hand... Very Happy

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

You seem to be headed in the right direction from my observation!
It also seems that someone else is trying to steer you in the wrong direction!
It kind of reminds me of a story that I had once read in the bible where the devil offers the world to jesus!
Have no love and compassion for your fellow man and the world can be yours! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes, the meaning is about the function.
And the function of the word meaning is different from the function of the word existence. You simply cannot say that an idea doesn't exist when talking about it causes it to exist.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I never said it did n´t exist, I agree it exists...
It exists for its function not above nor under that...

1 Reply

Philosophy of love

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know