@Fido,
That honestly seems like a whole lot of different thoughts jumbled up into one post. It's like a crazy zig zag of idea's in which I go into more depth with later (I do this in my down time at work). I will comment on one part now however.
Fido wrote:The reason the materialists win in this world is that what they seek is so readily captured, and what the spiritual seek is so elusive
The reason materialists win, is because this world (outside of ourselves) is material. Everything spiritual, is highly ineffable and cannot be appropriately conveyed in this world, externally. You have to "feel" it and until you do, you'll never really "believe". If you do "feel" it, then it's such an ineffable experience that it can really only be conveyed to people that have experienced it...so in a way it's like an inside joke.
@Chights47,
I agree. It's like a joke in that you either get it or you don't.
@Chights47,
On the other hand, materialism is not always amenable to simple description and analysis because it is burdened down with usually unexamined presuppositions that make it philosophically problematical.
On the spiritual side of the coin, there is required a more refined "intuition," i.e., the operation of thought at a less than conscious level of awareness.
Following Kantian, all questions man facing the world are summarized into two questions:
Q1(epistemological): what can we know? and Q2(ontological): what can we do?
Q1 is an epistemological question
Q2 is a moral queston
Man approaches Q1 by using our a priori applied to external expriences.
Man approaches Q2 by man-made maxim
Q1 is solved by pure reasoning
Q2 is solved by pure rational reasoning in practice
We first categorize our questions into these two classes:
Questions about material existence belongs to Q1, while Questions about spiritural existence belongs to Q2. We cannot solve Q2 by Q1 ways, and vice versa.
Questions about feeling are more complicated, it can be Q1 or Q2, depending on desire and purpose. If the feeling incurred from animal purpose/desire, then feeling related questions belong to
Q1, and are solved/answered by human skills governed by natural law. If the feeling incurred from non-purposiveness, then feeling related questions belong to Q2.
When you face the world and feel confused, most likely you are mixing up Q1 with Q2, and using Q1 way to approach Q2 problems, or vice versa.
Examples of categorization Q1 and Q2,
Soul existence, God existence, etc. are Q2 questions, NOT Q1 questions.
Quantum mechanics, relativity theories are Q1 questions.
Quantum entanglement; the theory is a Q1 question, but the interpretation is a Q2 question.
Love(pleasure or no pleasure), art (beautiful or not beautiful) are Q2 questions
Examples of messing up solving Q2 problems by Q1 solutions,
God existence by scientific proof.
Conscious existence by scientific proof.
Beautifulness by scientific guided standard.
Example of messing up solving Q1 problems by Q2 solutions,
emotion/feeling problems solved solely by God's words
scientific research guided by great scientist's maxim.
Finally, Human is desire. The dynamics of imagination is the key to create things or events in the world. However, Imagination must be put to ones internal tribunal to see not only if it constitutes a Q1 creation or Q2 creation, but if it constitutes "A" creation.
@whyisitso,
whyisitso wrote:
my first question is: why do we keep fighting so hard just to stay alive? just to keep our species going? i know its our survival instincts, but why do we have that instinct. we shouldnt care if we're alive or not. cougar who kills another cougar wont care that he's dead. but you try to killthe first cougar, and he'll try to live.
hence why I don't think philosophy is for the very young
you don't even understand what life is to live , for yourself , a few more years of experience wouldn't hurt
@whyisitso,
but if you try to kill a mother couger's cubs, then she'll fight to the death and beyond to protect them.
@whyisitso,
it's all about the cause you fight for. the couger's cause is to make the race survive. same with every living thing. they fight to the death and beyond to protect their species.
@north,
north wrote:hence why I don't think philosophy is for the very young
you don't even understand what life is to live , for yourself , a few more years of experience wouldn't hurt
What do you consider "young" then. I really don't think that age has as much to do with is. I know plenty of people well into their 30's who aren't nearly as wise as some of the "young-ins" that I know. I actually like discussing things with younger people (such as Whyisitso) because they're actually more receptive to things and not as close-minded as some "old foggies". In philosophy, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong for we should never completely accept or deny anything, we should seek only to understand.
@north,
north wrote:
whyisitso wrote:
my first question is: why do we keep fighting so hard just to stay alive? just to keep our species going? i know its our survival instincts, but why do we have that instinct. we shouldnt care if we're alive or not. cougar who kills another cougar wont care that he's dead. but you try to killthe first cougar, and he'll try to live.
hence why I don't think philosophy is for the very young
you don't even understand what life is to live , for yourself , a few more years of experience wouldn't hurt
There are no good young philosophers and no philosophers who did not begin at a very young age to ask questions... People should thin before they act... Experience alone teaches little, and tests first... We must act to be human, and to know what being human means: an investment of self in survival or the survival will come free, and without meaning... But think first, fast, and always...
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
so what make's us human?
Morals... Real morals of the sort that spring from affection for and identification with others...
@Fido,
What if you only believe in some of those morals? Would that make you only part human, and if so, which part?
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:
What if you only believe in some of those morals? Would that make you only part human, and if so, which part?
There are no half morals, or some morals... The thing that is obvious is that many people are loyal and moral to their community and no others... We might like to see a human morality, but as things stand, that is impossible...
@Fido,
i bet if i searched around a little bit, id find a post where youve said that those morals dont exist...
@Fido,
I was more leading to the question of what is morality. There are a vast amount of definitions as to what is, and is not moral. The only way you could name a "human moral" is if it was so generalize and had such a broad definition, that it basically makes it almost pointless.
@Chights47,
unless its one that your pretty sure your the only one with it...
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
i bet if i searched around a little bit, id find a post where youve said that those morals dont exist...
Moral forms do not exist... Morals don't really exist... The minds we perceive moral behavior with are themselves only moral forms... God does not need a definition, or a reality, or a being to have an effect upon our real behavior.. Just for an example...
@Fido,
thanks, fido. you just saved me alot of time.
