Submitted by thelivingphilosophy t3_yt6m03 in philosophy
Reply to comment by ridgecoyote in A cross between an Existentialist and an Old Testament prophet, Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard urged his "single individual" reader to follow the "highest passion" of faith rather than becoming one of the stereotyped pseudo-individuals of "The Crowd" by thelivingphilosophy
I don't think we interact with reality in its pure form at all so talking about free will and randomness is whole another debate. Although you are aggressive with your assumptions about me I don't think what I wrote was psychological reaction. All I am saying is we are not content without objective purpose en masse and that causes issues.
Humans in my humble estimation including me inherently weak because they had to be ignorant in some things to survive this long.
If I sound aggressive, it’s not because I’m railing against you, but a philosophical stance I find facile and ill-thought. Your reply just gave me a chance to unload something that’s been stirring inside.
There ARE problems with your statement- for one it assumes an objective reality outside of ourselves
As far as humans being weak, I’ll just have to ask, compared to what?
>There ARE problems with your statement- for one it assumes an objective reality outside of ourselves
thats not a problem.
frankly onus is on you to demonstrate that universe is mind-dependent. assuming the universe exists is a perfectly fine assumption, more so then fucking solipsism anyway.
."Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." C.S. Peirce
The problem with your “assumption “ (it’s actually more of a postulate) about a mind- independent world (and I assume you follow this from a scientifically oriented worldview ) Is the way one tends to reify one’s conception as if it’s absolutely real. This is The problem of our modern day. Josiah Royce in his biggest work, The World and the Individual, described it as the common metaphysical stance, but no real thinker can hold it for long because of its inherent self contradictions. “
However to make a fully supported argument would take more space than we have time for in this forum, and besides, my philosophical heroes do a better job than I. A good intro would be RM Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Compared to our potential. Time and time again I see we will never achieve it fully. And it's not helping our social structures does not reward certain actions compared to short sighted unfiltered goals.
I think there is objective reality but we lack the tools to interact with it in it's complete form because it wasn't really useful for our survival within our evolutionary process. An interface of simplified perception was way more energy efficient to stay alive and still achieved the purpose of reproduction. This interface called body has enough senses to ask the right questions and look for answers up to certain point but at the same time is not satisfying if you gathered enough independently tested scientific knowledge.
I'm sorry I couldn't write a lot as I am at my phone, I will try to explain better when I get to my pc. I will try to do my best to understand your position that triggered a reaction by my words.
So what defines our potential? The Bible? Mein Kampf? Scientology? You? Whatever ideals you’ve assimilated , the fact of Human potential is the potential to destroy life on the planet and while I’d say that’s pretty stupid, it’s certainly not weak.
The intellectual problems that come with asserting an objective reality are myriad but I’m happy to continue the discussion at a leisurely pace. William James said that he didn’t see how a philosophical club or society would be possible when it takes so much patience to define terms and understand the others. If you have the time and patience, so do I.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments