+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Logic, Metaphysics & Philosophy (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-80.html)
+--- Thread: Living philosophically (/thread-2555.html)
Pages:
1
2
Living philosophically - Magical Realist - Jun 23, 2016
Before philosophy was reduced to what deskbound academics did in treatises and essays, it was a way of life. Socrates believed in the moral uprightness of the philosopher to always confront the truth of every situation and reveal the nature of the Real. Lao Tzu imparted the wisdom of philosophy as a path to be followed thru life, always remaining open to the spontaneous flow of experience. Later on philosophers such as Thoreau and Kierkegaard and Ghandi and Sartre and Camus saw philosophy as the core of living a deliberately conscious and principled life. How do WE affirm the abstractions and axioms of our philosophizing mind in the everyday life we live and struggle thru? What principles of "life wisdom" can the philosophizing mind instill in us and in others? Can philosophy become a spiritual journey in itself, epitomizing the universal plight of the human in its search for meaning in a meaningless universe? Is there a guiding ethic for being a philosopher which entails taking sole responsibility for becoming as conscious as possible of Reality and experience?
“Stop thinking, and end your problems.
What difference between yes and no?
What difference between success and failure?
Must you value what others value,
avoid what others avoid?
How ridiculous!
Other people are excited,
as though they were at a parade.
I alone don't care,
I alone am expressionless,
like an infant before it can smile.
Other people have what they need;
I alone possess nothing.
I alone drift about,
like someone without a home.
I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.
Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharp;
I alone am dull.
Other people have purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.
I am different from ordinary people.
I drink from the Great Mother's breasts.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms.”
― Henry David Thoreau, Walden: Or, Life in the Woods
RE: Living philosophically - C C - Jun 24, 2016
The earliest Daoism (which might have had a long oral history before finally being written down) seemed to endorse a kind of immortality that stemmed from assuming the identity of the Way. Setting aside human passions and interference to join the flow of the unbiased, objective procedure of reality. Submitting to its concept-less doing, operation and engendering without interpretation of its events as good / bad, etc. The organization from disorder, its continuing modifications and richness of variety -- was itself the value, prior to the distinctions and needs of guided thought.
The government of Oceania borrowed a bit of that in 1984, advocating a goal of inner party members subsuming their individuality under the Party. To take on its systemic character and routines as their identity because only the Party was destined to be undying and eternal.
Ronnie Littlejohn: The Daodejing (hereafter, DDJ) is divided into 81 “chapters” consisting of slightly over 5,000 Chinese characters, depending on which text is used. [...] The term Dao means a road, and is often translated as “the Way.” This is because sometimes dao is used as a nominative (that is, “the dao”) and other times as a verb (i.e. daoing). Dao is the process of reality itself, the way things come together, while still transforming. All this reflects the deep seated Chinese belief that change is the most basic character of things.
In the Yi jing (Classic of Change) the patterns of this change are symbolized by figures standing for 64 relations of correlative forces and known as the hexagrams. Dao is the alteration of these forces, most often simply stated as yin and yang. The Xici is a commentary on the Yi jing formed in about the same period as the DDJ. It takes the taiji (Great Ultimate) as the source of correlative change and associates it with the dao. The contrast is not between what things are or that something is or is not, but between chaos (hundun) and the way reality is ordering (de). Yet, reality is not ordering into one unified whole. It is the 10,000 things (wanwu). There is the dao but not “the World” or “the cosmos” in a Western sense.
The Daodejing teaches that humans cannot fathom the Dao, because any name we give to it cannot capture it. It is beyond what we can express in language (ch.1). Those who experience oneness with dao, known as “obtaining dao,” will be enabled to wu-wei . Wu-wei is a difficult notion to translate. Yet, it is generally agreed that the traditional rendering of it as “nonaction” or “no action” is incorrect. Those who wu wei do act. Daoism is not a philosophy of “doing nothing.” Wu-wei means something like “act naturally,” “effortless action,” or “nonwillful action.” The point is that there is no need for human tampering with the flow of reality.
Wu-wei should be our way of life, because the dao always benefits, it does not harm (ch. 81) The way of heaven (dao of tian) is always on the side of good (ch. 79) and virtue (de) comes forth from the dao alone (ch. 21). What causes this natural embedding of good and benefit in the dao is vague and elusive (ch. 35), not even the sages understand it (ch. 76). But the world is a reality that is filled with spiritual force, just as a sacred image used in religious ritual might be inhabited by numinal power (ch. 29). The dao occupies the place in reality that is analogous to the part of a family’s house set aside for the altar for venerating the ancestors and gods (the ao of the house, ch. 62). When we think that life’s occurrences seem unfair (a human discrimination), we should remember that heaven’s (tian) net misses nothing, it leaves nothing undone (ch. 37). --Daoist Philosophy
RE: Living philosophically - Secular Sanity - Jun 26, 2016
(Jun 23, 2016 05:06 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: What principles of "life wisdom" can the philosophizing mind instill in us and in others?
I am different from ordinary people.
I drink from the Great Mother's breasts.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
That’s similar to a quote attributed to Juan de Yepes y Álvarez.
"Whoever knows how to die in all things will have life in all things."—St. John of the Cross.
When alone, you discover your insignificance, but even that is quest for your significance, your individualism, your likeness—to be known and seen by others.
I used to think that I knew where I ended and you began, but I no longer do.
"I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I am."—Thomas Cooley.
It’s true isn’t it, CC? It is impossible to know yourself. Even if you know the "self" is an illusion, and embrace the uncertainty, you still can’t escape your image, can you? You can’t opt out. Even knowledge is desired to make one wise. The desire to be desired is always there.
The anarchist, Buddhist, mountain man, lone wolf, are still a forms of social identity—an artificial image.
"Beware of the man who claims to be captain of his soul. He’s first mate at the very best."
—Allen Wheelis
RE: Living philosophically - C C - Jun 26, 2016
(Jun 26, 2016 03:54 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: It’s true isn’t it, CC? It impossible to know yourself. Even if you know the "self" is an illusion, and embrace the uncertainty, you still can’t escape your image, can you?
Well, any immediate conception I usually have of myself, that appears in causal thought or which I summon to play in a practical situation at hand, is almost surely going to be threadbare. Or buried in a knee-jerk everyday context. Or not hanging together very well if scrutinized for inconsistencies (if there was enough details to such an informal model for that to even be applicable). That is, it's almost certainly an illusion or lower-order effigy.
And a deeper, philosophical construct of "who / what I am" would be too mentally heavy to lug around for all occasions for the average person that isn't a disciplined master of some orthopraxy. Plus, I guess that Western approach would seem to miss the point of any Eastern views that regard the very attempt to analyze and describe _X_ as a case of artificially interfering with and corrupting _X_. Or departing from the genuine _X_. Especially if such happens to be of the school of just "going with the indifferent or neutral flow of nature", minus the being perpetually manipulated by systematic guidance and cognitive biases.
RE: Living philosophically - Secular Sanity - Jun 27, 2016
Quote:Especially if such happens to be of the school of just "going with the indifferent or neutral flow of nature", minus the being perpetually manipulated by systematic guidance and cognitive biases.
Speaking of cognitive biases, what do you think about this theory? Could they be right? Maybe the confirmation bias isn’t a flaw, but a feature. Your ideas or decisions don’t have to be correct or good. You just have to be able to justify them. Do you think it’s too simple, another one of those just-so stories?
"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments."
Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative.
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.
http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf
RE: Living philosophically - Secular Sanity - Jun 27, 2016
Quote:It’s true isn’t it, CC? It impossible to know yourself. Even if you know the "self" is an illusion, and embrace the uncertainty, you still can’t escape your image, can you? You can’t opt out. Even knowledge is desired to make on wise. The desire to be desired is always there.
I just noticed something. I do this all the time. I leave out letters and entire words. I can only pick up on it when I read it the next day. When I forget what I initially said then my mind is no longer anticipating what comes next. Fraggle said once, that there was a name for this, and it was similar to dyslexia. I can’t remember the name of the disorder. I don’t think it’s a disorder, though, do you? In the discussion about the "self" being an illusion, they talk about how our minds fill in the blanks, and how we can still read a paragraph when it’s jumbled.
![[Image: the-letter-t-twice.jpg]](http://creativethinking.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/the-letter-t-twice.jpg)
We read and write from left-right. If you're trying to locate something, you can scan an area from right-left. Your visual field will be choppy, and not as smooth, but you’ll be able to pick out more details. I went to a wine tasting event this weekend with my girlfriends. One of them wandered off and I was able to quickly spot her within the crowd. It’s not a good proofreading tip, though.
Well, I’ll be damned. Stryder doesn’t have a time limit on editing. I was able to fix it. Wow! He’s treating us like adults. I like it!
RE: Living philosophically - C C - Jun 27, 2016
(Jun 27, 2016 02:18 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:Quote:Especially if such happens to be of the school of just "going with the indifferent or neutral flow of nature", minus the being perpetually manipulated by systematic guidance and cognitive biases.
Speaking of cognitive biases, what do you think about this theory? Could they be right? Maybe the confirmation bias isn’t a flaw, but a feature. Your ideas or decisions don’t have to be correct or good. You just have to be able to justify them. Do you think it’s too simple, another one of those just-so stories?
"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments."
Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative.
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.
http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf
Formal "reasoning" and its classical, two-value restriction fell out of civilization's intellectual trends (not biological evolution). So if refers to that, then the idea is virtually attacking a strawman if assuming possibility-wise that such could have literally been part of the brain's inherent operating system. Aside from an institutional origin for logic, the brain's "natural" approach to thinking couldn't help but evolve to be practical, in the course of coping with and adapting to its social-interaction context, which included trickery and bullying among the ways to sway others.
However, in the kind of "folk rationality" or inventive tendencies earlier humans did exhibit in their everyday lives -- there were precursors for the eventual, artificial emergence of abstract philosophical activity. Tool-making, counting, planning ahead, making causal correlations between things / events, inter-tribal discourse, cultural orthodoxies (frameworks of rules), and hanging on to successful strategies and methods for survival were a sloppy soil for later systemic schemes of "proper thinking" to sprout from.
The latter's initial true/false rigidity had a pragmatic precursor in the early social concerns of whether or not strangers were being deceptive (and to a lesser extent being able to distinguish liars from truth-tellers in one's own community). But as far as accepting "grand beliefs" about reality that went beyond local verifiable objects, the concerns would have been pragmatic justifications: "I like _X_ story because it makes us blah-blah feel good to or teaches moral lessons to the children or because it blah-blah intimidates the subjects enough to keep them from rebelling or because it blah-blah unifies and organizes the tribe usefully to accomplish our goals, etc."
RE: Living philosophically - Magical Realist - Jun 27, 2016
Quote:Well, I’ll be damned. Stryder doesn’t have a time limit on editing.
I love that option. Whole posts may change or lengthen at any time! Nothing is written in stone! Would that reality were so malleable.
RE: Living philosophically - C C - Jun 27, 2016
(Jun 27, 2016 02:43 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [...] I just noticed something. I do this all the time. I leave out letters and entire words. I can only pick up on it when I read it the next day.
It's becoming a growing affliction for me. Even if I examine something well before I post it I still later discover missing words or odd substitutions for what I intended, etc.
Quote:Well, I’ll be damned. Stryder doesn’t have a time limit on editing. I was able to fix it. Wow! He’s treating us like adults. I like it!
Yep. One of the perks of an underpopulated board, I guess. Just like Andy & Barney would have to give-up their causal, homespun policing if Mayberry burgeoned in size and finally experienced big-time crime at a regular rate.
RE: Living philosophically - Secular Sanity - Jun 28, 2016
(Jun 27, 2016 05:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:Quote:Well, I’ll be damned. Stryder doesn’t have a time limit on editing.
I love that option. Whole posts may change or lengthen at any time! Nothing is written in stone! Would that reality were so malleable.
That is until someone like me come along and captures it.
Are you trying to say that you wish reality was as malleable?
It is, through our perceptions and memories. We continually modify and reconstruct it. Our stories are like errors in DNA replication and each time we retell them, we risk error. Even the concept of "self" isn’t stable. It’s fluid and context-dependent.
In fact, there’s a lot of interesting work on the concept of the "self" with autobiographical knowledge being useful even when episodic memories are inaccessible.
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/13/scan.nsv056.full