0
   

Depth-foolosophy

 
 
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 04:03 am
Depth-foolosophy? It's what I call a simultaneous obsession with linguistic philosophy, depth psychology, religious myth, and the philosophic tradition.

Thought is made of words. Therefore linguistic philosophy. Depth psychology is a word-picture of the mind. The mind includes what not? Psychology descended from philosophy you say? The word perhaps but not the science. Psychology is theology is philosophy is poetry.

Man lives in a unified body of word. Distinctions are useful but deceptive. I'm voting Holism.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,677 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 06:40 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;113490 wrote:
Depth-foolosophy? It's what I call a simultaneous obsession with linguistic philosophy, depth psychology, religious myth, and the philosophic tradition.


Gets confusing, huh? Ha!

Reconstructo;113490 wrote:
Thought is made of words. Therefore linguistic philosophy. Depth psychology is a word-picture of the mind. The mind includes what not? Psychology descended from philosophy you say? The word perhaps but not the science. Psychology is theology is philosophy is poetry.


The "what not" is often replaced with "what if" and that is what gets us into trouble. No one has a crystal ball.

As to poetry, it has a rhyme and rhythm to it that offers easy listening though the poet in many cases can express a truth that he himself does not recognize. Call it a verse with a curse and it will take time to understand that hex as we ponder what next wishing for a ring that will make all our chimes sing. Ha! I love doing that.

Reconstructo;113490 wrote:
Man lives in a unified body of word. Distinctions are useful but deceptive. I'm voting Holism.


Yeah, me too; but unfortunately that word "Holism" has a religious ring to it and many just put it into that folder as if it has nothing to do with life for it is "just one of those things" we have to deal with. Perhaps if we replace it with "natural"? That might be a problem too huh? Could it be that we are so off course, we don't have a clue as to what "natural" is? :perplexed:

William
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 08:11 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;113490 wrote:
Depth-foolosophy? It's what I call a simultaneous obsession with linguistic philosophy, depth psychology, religious myth, and the philosophic tradition.

Thought is made of words. Therefore linguistic philosophy. Depth psychology is a word-picture of the mind. The mind includes what not? Psychology descended from philosophy you say? The word perhaps but not the science. Psychology is theology is philosophy is poetry.

Man lives in a unified body of word. Distinctions are useful but deceptive. I'm voting Holism.

Philosophy is already an abstraction.... Love and knowledge are both moral forms... The point of abstracting the abstraction further is to make it purely conceptual, and the danger is that in doing so it will become illegible...Physics based upon reality, -tangible, sensible reality stands on better theoretical ground dealing only with abstractions than does philosophy because each part, love and knowledge is a moral form having no objective reality associated with it....We are not trying to conceptualize a reality based upon an abstraction, but trying to conceptualize a concept...It just adds to the confusion...

Ditto for depth psychology and religious myth... There is no abstract study of an abstraction...First prove a psyche, and then prove a depth phychology... There is only the general, because the specific cannot be shown...We have neither love nor knowledge...Depth is a concept and so is the psyche...Just talk about the thing...The words are modes of thought, directed thought, and they do not need to be modified...

And; don't expect your universal equivalents to fly...In one sense, all virtues are equals in that they can sort of be exchanged one for another....Sugar and salt are both good after a fashion, but some people would trade salt for sugar, and others would trade sugar for salt.. They are equal by identity, and what gives them value is our sense of need for them... You are correct in your organization, with psychi near theo; as with all concepts, they are inseperable from the spiritual conception of nature, and reality and self...The concept of the scientist is the spirit of the naturalist... As we have grown, our sense of concept has changed, but the spiritual sense of the thing has been a constant...Some of our moral forms are purely spiritual in quality... Do you see what stupidity can result. Each is like a lens, and every abstraction is like setting another lens before the other... So love, and knowledge are both moral abstractions focusing the other on the object of our will, and who needs more confusion than that????

Never forget that these forms are all forms of relationship... We have philosophy in common...Other people have chess, or math, or automobiles...People club around their ideas, and there is a hierarchy of skill and interest in every form... Some people think they are winning the game if they can make the thing inscrutable...Philosophy as we know it is not rocket science...That is classed as physics...It is more essential to life than rocket science, and those people who want to confuse the issues which I do not see as all that confusing so they can be king of the burgers or something are not doing anyone any favors...We have our abstractions to facilitate our thought, and those people who want to stack abstractions belabor thought with abstractions...Ignorance can be easily cured before confusion will respond...Speak and think clearly, and cure yourself of confusion...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 03:51 pm
@Fido,
Fido;113513 wrote:
..Speak and think clearly, and cure yourself of confusion...


See, I agree with this. In practical life, such clarity is easy. In theoretical life, not so easy after all. Humans use these symbols, words. But the more abstract a word is, the less the word bears it meaning, and the more the context and the two psyches involved are responsible for meaning.

Depth-psych is just seeing that the psyche is bigger than the ego. Depth-psych is to look behind the curtain. Psychology is essentially the construction of a dynamic mental-model of the psych. We all do this to survive. We all need the know the motives of the humans around us. Who to trust? There are liars in the world. We all learn to read behind disguises. Marx was just this type. So was Schopenhauer and Plato. Philosophy and psychology are occult sciences, sciences of the hidden.

For me, my questioning of concepts is a liberating pleasure. These words are the mental-chains of humanity. If a man can see into motive and also into the mechanics of persuasion, he is armed against deceit. Of course there is always self-deceit, but such is life.

---------- Post added 12-22-2009 at 04:56 PM ----------

William;113498 wrote:
No one has a crystal ball.


I agree. I try to keep my mind open, but then habit is a strong force. I don't want to reduce the world to Godlessness. What I especially want is to encourage a self-consciousness in regards to words. For instance, the word "God" is clearly not God. It's the same with "truth" and "justice." But symbols often become idols. Our language is still figurative, but many seem unaware of this. Abstractions are dead metaphors, dead picture-symbols. We have feelings about these symbols. Become the slaves of them.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 11:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
I am sure you are missing my point here... Abstractions are a problem... Abstractions of abstractions makes the problems we face larger by far...With philosophy a word made of two abstraction we want to attempt the understanding, and if possible, the improvement of mankiind...

Look at the danger...People with all their forms and formulas, with all their concepts and ideals are living beings, possessed of some reality...Since Plato's time people have been forced to conform to some ideal of society, of behavior; and I hope the worst of that is behind us with Communism, and Fascism... But; in the smallest sense or the largest, ideal man is the deadly enemy of real men and human kind...

If we see mankind in its true light, not much improvement is possible... All our virtues may at times be seen as vices, and vices as virtues; and after all, people cannot change their nature...For that reason humanity does not adapt, but instead reforms its environment to reflect its constant need, and its better understanding... What good does it do to get all theoretical about a simple problem... We need to change our forms because the old ones are destroying us...We can observe the health of the form in the strength of the relationship, and our national relationship is blowing out at the seams...We don't need a more abstract anything, especially Philosophy, which by its nature is an abstraction, and worse, two abstractions bound together... Are we going to understand simple human behavior better through multiple levels of abstraction??? I know better...

What humanity is, is easy to see in a natural light... Look at history, anthropology, or psychology, even admitting these as lenses of abstraction, and still, the same humanity shows through...If it were possible for humanity to change don't you suppose we would have done so??? It is the most we can expect that people will find the will to change their forms before they are destroyed, as many have already been destroyed by their failing forms...Everyone should take Occam's razor to it...Other layers of abstraction added to moral reality is multplying entities...The focus of philosophy is humanity. Humanity cannot be conceived of except as a moral form, a concept...To think this abstraction can be improved upon by the combination of two other linked concepts: Love and knowledge is bizarre...Who really wants to add to the levels of our abstractions and still expect to hook some truth, -another concept???
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 11:41 pm
@Reconstructo,
I think I see your point, but do you see mine? For me, abstractions are a pleasure and an art form. For others perhaps they are burdens. Word is a woman. Behind every word is another word. Behind every mask is another mask. (I use "woman" symbolically, not in any disparaging way. I love woman and women.) Math offers us an ideal clarity. But math can only do so much. Logos is a rodeo. For me, life is largely justified by words used well. I love writing and writers.

I've got one life, no god, no afterlife. That's how I see it at the moment. Social problems don't occupy my mind much. If I'm a rat on a sinking ship, I want to get my kicks before I drown. To think a hole in the curtains is one of things that justifies life for me. I want to write a great book, and yet another part of me knows that this is pointless. Life is absurd, but I'm enjoying it anyway.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 11:48 pm
@Reconstructo,
Not any more necessary than they help... Like I said: People club around these forms, and it is natural to exclude, even within the group...I do not want my language or thought to exclude anyone...I am not telling you to do philosophy for the masses; but that is what I am about...Use concepts to speed and facilitate thought... Any concept that does not help in this purpose muddies thought and steals time...
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 11:49 pm
@Reconstructo,
Are you optimistic about the struggle or do you feel that one should struggle in any case? Where are you on Marx? Adam Smith?
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 12:27 am
@Reconstructo,
You're up against the limits of thought. It is an interesting place to be. The image that comes to mind is the chicken pecking at the inside of the shell.

Keep pecking. :bigsmile:
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 01:00 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113693 wrote:
You're up against the limits of thought. It is an interesting place to be. The image that comes to mind is the chicken pecking at the inside of the shell.

Keep pecking. :bigsmile:


I don't think that life is justified by thought but rather by feeling. I would say that thoughts are valuable as a means to good feelings. "Good feelings" is perhaps an understatement or ultra-casual way of putting it. But "feelings" it is, as this is word that is well understood.

I think I know what you mean by the phrase "the limits of thought." Still, I think there is an "impossibility of closure." Reality can be endlessly redescribed, especially considering that much of modern description is the description of descriptions. A poet's work (joy) is never done.

I understand the image, but I cannot totally agree. Kojeve writes well about this here, in the chapter on Wisdom. (Second Lecture)
Introduction to the reading of Hegel - Google Books
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 05:17 am
@Reconstructo,
In which we read that 'the Hindu thinkers...say that man approaches satisfaction-perfection in dreamless sleep, that satisfaction-perfection is realized in the absolute night of the "fourth state" (turiya) of the Brahmins, on in Nirvana, in the extinction of all consciousness, of the Buddhists.' (p 84).

I would be dissappointed if the aim of the Buddhist path were really the extinction of all consciousness, or that Turiya of the Brahmins is an 'absolute night'.

Nirvana is the extinction of suffering, no doubt, and also of the ego and all one's personal dramas. But it is not 'unconsciousness' or 'annihalation' in the sense suggested here. Perhaps this understanding comes from thinking about what it must be like to be 'beyond thinking'. Certainly nirvana is beyond thought and description, but it is not nothing in the sense of mere non-existence. It is beyond existence, but not non-existence. Dharma is not nihilism.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 05:47 am
@Reconstructo,
The object of thoughts, and concepts is a reality where it is safe to be and to feel...

And if it necessary to add: For everyone!
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 04:43 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113726 wrote:
It is beyond existence, but not non-existence. Dharma is not nihilism.


This sounds good, but I must point out that you are using concepts here. As soon as your describe, you enter the realm of logos/word. A person can say the investigation of the nature of word is not important. That's a respectable position. But I'm quite interested in the nature of logos/concept/trope in relation to religion/spiritual traditions. Concepts like "beyond" and negative prefixes like "non." Philosophy/mysticism is largely based on negation. Ab-solute. In-finite. Trans-rational. Etc.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 05:45 PM ----------

Fido;113727 wrote:
The object of thoughts, and concepts is a reality where it is safe to be and to feel...

And if it necessary to add: For everyone!


But people aren't the same. One man's easy and useful concept is another man's riddle. I can tell you this from experience. Some don't like to think abstractly. It disturbs them. Think of Marx and his dialectical materialism. Was a modified Hegel really so democratic an ideology?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 04:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Well, that is what I was commenting on! It was a quote from the reference you provided about Hegel, on his conception of wisdom. And as you are getting at, beyond words.

When I did the 10-day Vipassana retreat 2 years ago, it is conducted in silence. The only dialog permitted is between the student and the assistant teacher about what you are experiencing or what difficulties (!) you are having. (It was all difficult, as far as I was concerned.) The format of this retreat is a day-long routine of 1-hour sitting meditation sessions, commencing 4:00am, finishing 9:00pm, with 2 meal breaks and a bit of free time in the middle of the day.

And one of the firm rules of the whole course is: no philosophizing!
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 04:58 pm
@Reconstructo,
I can respect that. Silence is golden. I don't necessarily agree with Hegel's position. Kojeve contrasted him with the mystical, the move toward silence and transcendence. I thought it was powerful. Hegel chose the word route, and yet I feel that he must have felt something about his system. When I say that reason is subordinate to life, I am pointing to its limits. Words are the tools of life. Sometimes not the right tool. And yet this forum must necessarily be the tool-use of words.

Often words are used to point away from words. I can understand why, in my own way. If we mean the "limits of thought" in regards to the attainment of ideal states of being, I can completely agree with that. I would just object to the possibility of closure, of accounts being settled conceptually. As much as I respect Hegel, some of his key points are absurd to me. I know what he means by the end of history, but it's not as important to me as it was to him. Trope is an infinite game. Have you looked at Finnegans Wake?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 05:08 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;113904 wrote:
This sounds good, but I must point out that you are using concepts here. As soon as your describe, you enter the realm of logos/word. A person can say the investigation of the nature of word is not important. That's a respectable position. But I'm quite interested in the nature of logos/concept/trope in relation to religion/spiritual traditions. Concepts like "beyond" and negative prefixes like "non." Philosophy/mysticism is largely based on negation. Ab-solute. In-finite. Trans-rational. Etc.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 05:45 PM ----------



But people aren't the same. One man's easy and useful concept is another man's riddle. I can tell you this from experience. Some don't like to think abstractly. It disturbs them. Think of Marx and his dialectical materialism. Was a modified Hegel really so democratic an ideology?


It disturbs me to waste a lot of time on senseless abstractions... It could be that Marx thought of the dialectic, as the Greeks did, as a method of reaching truth rather than, as the middle ages conceived of it: As a means of resolving contradictions...Each is exclusive of the other... You know; all the philosophy aside, Marx is a great read...The guy was a great economist, and historian, and if he had been more of a philosopher he would not have resorted to a quick scare when he might have invested in a long term change...Every one wants change while they live to see it... Jesus had a better idea... Change yourself and the world changes with you...
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 05:11 pm
@Reconstructo,
I like Marx. I was reading The German Ideology not long ago. He's quite the smart-a**, Marx. He's contemptuous just like Nietzsche. But surely you will agree that not just anyone could understand The German Ideology. Any popular movement must simplify its message. Before long its just another religion (ethics + emotion).
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 05:13 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;113910 wrote:
Well, that is what I was commenting on! It was a quote from the reference you provided about Hegel, on his conception of wisdom. And as you are getting at, beyond words.

When I did the 10-day Vipassana retreat 2 years ago, it is conducted in silence. The only dialog permitted is between the student and the assistant teacher about what you are experiencing or what difficulties (!) you are having. (It was all difficult, as far as I was concerned.) The format of this retreat is a day-long routine of 1-hour sitting meditation sessions, commencing 4:00am, finishing 9:00pm, with 2 meal breaks and a bit of free time in the middle of the day.

And one of the firm rules of the whole course is: no philosophizing!

I got too much time on my Hands, too much time on my hands, tooooo much time on my hands and etc...
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 05:24 pm
@Reconstructo,
but the whole problem with Western philosophy became the absence of any kind of application. Hegel, brilliant though he might have been, was lost in a forest of abstractions. Marx, in criticizing Hegel - wasn't it said that he 'turned Hegel upside down' - completely walked away from any idea of philosophical illumination and concentrated entirely on material relationships, the means of production, social structures and the like. Yet I don't think history has been kind to Marx. It turns out he was completely wrong in all of his predictions and prescriptions. None of them worked out, in my view. I am not endorsing capitalism but it would be great if Marx had worked out a valid counter-thesis. He didn't.

That chapter in the Kojeve book - at least Hegel recognises and validates 'wisdom' and living from wisdom as a goal of the philosphical enterprise. But what is the praxis? How do you go about it? "Perfect self-consciousness' he writes, and proceeds to compare it with a mistaken depiction of Hindu and Buddhist wisdom.

This is where Buddhism has managed to survive and adapt for 2,500 years, and keep re-inventing itself, while keeping true to the enlightenment of the founder. There are Buddhist centres and teachers all over the USA, and many other places, actually giving people the skills to develop wisdom in their day to day lives. The Buddhists understand skillful means, how to put the rubber on the road. Hegel was lost in dense thickets of verbiage, which is one reason why the analytical philosophers and materialists have rejected his work. Just my view of it.:bigsmile:
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 01:41 am
@Reconstructo,
What I find fascinating about Hegel via Kojeve is the strange shape of his totality. Rather than a transcendent timeless "theology" he offers a circle that develops in time, conceptually. Man alone with his concept comes to himself as the unity-in-difference of subject and substance, man and god. It reminds me of Finnegans Wake. As to how the German reads, I can't say. It does have a bad reputation. For me Hegel is no more the truth than anyone else, but his "poetry" is fascinating. He pays attention to the development of concept.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Depth-foolosophy
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 07:08:22