'Why anything?'

@Fil Albuquerque,

I've been quoting a lot of Wittgenstein recently because he is central to the concept of philosophy as "therapy", rather than providng epistemological insight. These traditional distinctions like idealism/materialism are dismissed by him as being misguided "theorizing". The substantive situation is that "philosophers" trail in the wake of scientific and sociological developments. We attempt to stand back and make "authoritative" comment on such developments, but in reality we tend to be bemused spectators rather than informed consultants. For example, we misguidedly attempt to utilize yesterday's hand-me.down paradigms (Socratic logic, Information theory etc) out of their contextual zeitgeist and apply them inappropriately to "comment" on later developments (Quantum Mechanics, Cognitive Science etc).

Richard Rorty attempted to justify his own iconoclasm of philosophy by arguing that philosophers should be advocates of intellectual democracy, rather than purveyors of specific positions. Whether such a role is parasitic or beneficial is itself open to debate.

1 Reply

@fresco,

...if defending democracy is allowing someone to disagree with me in a debate then by all means I am all for democracy, quite another thing is to admit to my opponents position without having good reason to do so...the thing is, and I am never tired to repeat it, one must be personally engaged in order to produce anything worth mentioning in philosophy...same is to say one must BELIEVE something, as far reason itself believes in it, given present amount of available information and our "situation" in it...commitment is of essence in philosophy, otherwise we easily fall down to historical report and mere banal inventory ad up of positions...unfortunately we have enough of that already...

0 Replies

WOAH, I leave the thread for nearly a day and I see some serious talks happening... I like it Smile

It comes as no surprise the day I go to see David Icke do a talk in Melbourne(where I'm from), you peeps touch on some of the subject matter which he talked about. (By the way, David Icke is a speaker of 'new age' theories; trust me, you don't have to like them all but some are pretty convincing)

First this matter with the mind. 'Dave' gives this idea of 'frequencies' and that the 'mind' is like a reciever and transmitter of 'information'. He says that 'reality' is a 'waveform construct' and how we 'decode' this 'waveform construct' (which is essentially information) is with the 'mind'. But he says the problem is that our 'minds' is just like programming and we only see a limited spectrum of all the possible frequencies in the universe.(He also continues to say how we are programmed by the 'system' that intends to 'enslave' humanity by 'programming' their 'minds' to think in certain ways.. But we can discuss that later) He also talks about 'consciousness' and draws distinction between it and the 'mind'. He explicitly states that 'conciousness' is infinite and within this infinite 'consciousness' lies all possibilities; a liberating source of awarness of experience. He also mentions the left side of the brain is where most people get caught up in this system while those who use their right side of the brain don't do well in the system. (ie. Scientists vs Artists; you may know some of this stuff already so I'll continue)

Now on to this idea of representation. 'Dave' talks of reality as 'illusory' and discussed this idea of our percieved realities to be 'holographic' (an idea he saw in a science article but had previous) So I agree with Fil that representation is a bunch of bull. He also says that the universe is merely a 'copy' of things in itself and showed a picture of a neuron in the brain firing and a picture of a cluster of galaxies which were strikingly simillar. And to add to that everything has a frequency and vibrates so we percieve an experience through consciousness which is only within our own visble field of light but never see the full spectrum. So what we really see is the 'decoding' of 'information' from the 'holographic reality' we percieve through 'consciousness' which is part of the bigger 'waveform construct'... Confused me too

And last point I'll touch on is the path of the philosopher. I'm not going to use 'Dave' for reference on this cos I don't think he is a great philosopher but he is a pretty good polemicist. Instead I'll be classical and use Socrates as my inspiration for this point. Why? Cos he knew his ignorance (limitations) and was wise to it and in doing so knew that he knew nothing, and that fact made him seek out wisdom(soph); befriending those he talked to (philos). And it was this friendliness along with wisdom, goodwill and an openess to speak freely which made philosophy and his life intertwine cohesively... But we all have our own take on things and no idea is absolute. Make of it what you will. Like the Tao Teh Ching says 'Learn to unlearn one's learning.' But something already tells me you peeps know that.. Wink

0 Replies

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7mlRDyA5Y

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

... just keep on and on till one gets to the most absurdly simplest of the forms, to the most basic possible concept, where finally we can confidently derive some natural unitarian bond who itself is transcendent to any kind of need for justification...that is my personnel quest with philosophy,

...to me is all about ultimate nature...since young age it was the calling spell in the mystery of Metaphysics that always interested me...it is not about "God", no...but rather about tranquillity...what else is there to strive for ?

I have a few questions Fil:

Where are you on this quest? What is the most basic possible concept... what is the ultimate nature? If you don't know what's your current best guess and what's your best guess of the path you need to follow to attain this goal? Why do you strive for tranquility?

1 Reply

@igm,

...true "tranquillity" (not apathy) is that which emerges when you finally get to comprehend something in depth...lack of clarity, confusion and stupidity, not "badness" is to my knowledge the only cause of conflict in the world...so one must strive for clarity always and one can only achieve it through a personnel inner search in which our own thought processes and perceptions are to be amplified beyond the boundaries of linear reasoning...(no book can teach you that)

...my so called "quest" for simplicity regarding the ontological status of reality it is essentially a quest against dualisms and against apparent dichotomy's raised out of the status quo and heard mentality that we like to call culture, but mostly cooked in confusion and unneeded complication...

...the idea of a mathematical all encompassing self enclosed looping noumena composed of several systemic layers of information in a one dimension string it is so far the best candidate in my mind to achieve the status of "simplicity"...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...the idea of a mathematical all encompassing self enclosed looping noumena composed of several systemic layers of information in a one dimension string it is so far the best candidate in my mind to achieve the status of "simplicity"...

Could this idea be simpler in terms of language? (although I do think this idea is like what theoretical physicists try to achieve in an elegant theory of everything; is this simmilar to your quest for simplicity?)

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

1 - "Simplicity" is an attitude, a way of being, that starts in the morning when you enter a coffee shop and order your meal and ends up when you get in bed and think about the day...what comes out of your real daily practice is then reflected on how you learn to think...

2 - ...quantum physicists in String Theory advocate eleven dimensions I in turn am well convinced that only one is needed...
(...this is an example of simplicity...elegance should not ever be compromised ! )

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I in turn am well convinced that only one is needed...

and I in turn am convinced that "a theory of everything" is an oxymoron.

Laughing

2 Replies

@fresco,

...looool...maybe you believe two theory´s can do a better job, kind of half each ! Mr. Green

...how smart that works for you now eh ?

0 Replies

...I always loved the so ever gentle featherly touch in the democratic wind of mediocrity, playing its passionate "tous ensemble" little part for the greater happiness and joy of the people...long live the anarchy Che ! Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

"Simplicity" is an attitude, a way of being, that starts in the morning when you enter a coffee shop and order your meal and ends up when you get in bed and think about the day...what comes out of your real daily practice is then reflected on how you learn to think...

I meant can your idea be simpler not a defintion of simplicity. Does there have to be one dimension, is it possible there are no dimensions? Can we just say everything=everything? How far does the rabbit hole go?

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

If you aim is to explain and not just to declare then there are limits on the way you can explain something with clarity...I know what you meant to ask and I did answer what I saw fit for you to understand, I see you missed my point...and no there can be no zero dimensions, at least one dimension of order is needed for order to be order !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I understand what you say about having real practice into thinking about how things could be simplified but I also think that things aren't that simple. I know there are limits in which we can explain things with clarity but that is beside my point. I think simplicity has no end and in itself is a paradox. Is that too big of a statement?

0 Replies

@fresco,

I agree--although I can't know, of course--that only one Reality is needed. Indeed, even if it were demonstrated that there are "eleven"--mathematically, of course--it would be perceived by this observer as A SINGLE SET of eleven.
I'm not sure what Fresco means by his integring phrase, "'a theory of everything' is an oxymoron," but I do think that "a theory of nothing" is meaningless for the obvious reason that the question then could/would not possibly be asked" --and this would answer the OP.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The theorizer necessarily attempts to stand aloof from "the system". Therefore there is a least one "thing" outside the system, hence the theory can never encompass "everything".

This mirrors Godel's "incompleteness theorem" in which all formal systems require at least one axiom which cannot be deduced from the system itself.

All we can hope for is a potential infinite regress of nested observations of observation, any of which might be functional in"explaining"(i.e predicting) events at a "lower" level. But ultimately "events" must always be relative to "observers", and "prediction" will be relative to "time" for that observer.

The transcendent position from which these comments ensue, is one of zero differention between observer and observed, and the consequent deconstruction of "measurement of change" which provides the time dimension along which "prediction" operates. With respect to that, the word "theory" becomes meaningless, but the epistemological appreciation of that in no way detracts from possible technological progress.

1 Reply

@fresco,

And it would seem that the theorizer presumes a position of privilege outside the "system" of which he speaks in order to avoid paradox. His generalization then becomes a meta-theoretical notion. A slight of hand is one asks me. On the other hand I never feel excessively constrained by logic, as I been told before.
I've heard of Godel's "incompleteness theorem" but with my usual obstinacy I've failed to exam it. One day. To what extent and for what reasons is his theorem generally accepted...this would apply as well to Russell's Theory of Types.
Regarding the trap of the Infinite Regress, my provisional escape is simply to ignore it, to treat all effects as complete in themselves, in no need of causes (they only become dependent "effects" when we attach phenomena to
independent" "causes"--which become, of course, effects on the infinite string of unending causes: the curse of Determinism).

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

My problem is perhaps shared and thought of by others and it concerns identity, purpose and the overall 'progression of the species'. It would seem our species is shooting for something that is considerably far into our future, yet I wonder on whose behalf and who are we all 'comfortably' riding the coat tails of? Those thinkers among you may perhaps have thought of an infinite inevitability which perhaps may find itself an end (God?), yet we can always think what is beyond.

So the problem that I have is that although there are meanings and points to life that we either make ourselves, that are given, or we are inspired by; I will argue that by mere switching of moods or disposition these meanings dissapear as everything may seem bleak or pointless. I honestly don't think that eradictaing peoples bad moods would help either for that maybe encroaching on the territory of population control (ideas that were perhaps intitiated by the Eugenics movement early 20th century which inspired Hitler's regime). And the concepts of 'self' are in a simmilar vein as ideas of the 'self' seemingly reinvent itself with time and could be considered no more than bundles of experiences, thoughts, memories etc.. any one time someone asks 'who are you?' So, considering these things, what then of the human identity and it's progression towards the future? What is the point if no one (I literally mean 'no one') can ever get to the bottom of the question 'Why anything?' without resorting to temporal fixes on life or actually being in contact with the 'creator' (which of course is highly dubious) when we should be answering these sorts of questions with a deep sense of bold curiousity for the future. Treat my line of questioning as a provocation to think deeper about ourselves and to arrive at ideas that can touch all bases within the confines of society (ie. spirituality, health, duty.. etc). Ultimately, will our species be better or worse off in the future?

Quote:

why nothing

because nothing begets nothing , forever

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

My problem is perhaps shared and thought of by others and it concerns identity, purpose and the overall 'progression of the species'. It would seem our species is shooting for something that is considerably far into our future, yet I wonder on whose behalf and who are we all 'comfortably' riding the coat tails of? Those thinkers among you may perhaps have thought of an infinite inevitability which perhaps may find itself an end (God?), yet we can always think what is beyond.

So the problem that I have is that although there are meanings and points to life that we either make ourselves, that are given, or we are inspired by; I will argue that by mere switching of moods or disposition these meanings dissapear as everything may seem bleak or pointless. I honestly don't think that eradictaing peoples bad moods would help either for that maybe encroaching on the territory of population control (ideas that were perhaps intitiated by the Eugenics movement early 20th century which inspired Hitler's regime). And the concepts of 'self' are in a simmilar vein as ideas of the 'self' seemingly reinvent itself with time and could be considered no more than bundles of experiences, thoughts, memories etc.. any one time someone asks 'who are you?' So, considering these things, what then of the human identity and it's progression towards the future? What is the point if no one (I literally mean 'no one') can ever get to the bottom of the question 'Why anything?' without resorting to temporal fixes on life or actually being in contact with the 'creator' (which of course is highly dubious) when we should be answering these sorts of questions with a deep sense of bold curiousity for the future. Treat my line of questioning as a provocation to think deeper about ourselves and to arrive at ideas that can touch all bases within the confines of society (ie. spirituality, health, duty.. etc). Ultimately, will our species be better or worse off in the future?

Quote:

why nothing

because nothing begets nothing , forever

1 Reply

'Why anything?'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know