This topic is locked from further discussion.
A lot of the conflicts I see on this forum tend to come down to this. many people try to prove things using science to people who believe one must journey inside their mind (or soul) for the truth, and rarely care about empirical evidence. I would say the inward journey(ie:platos idea of knowledge) is irrational.
How about you? if this thread picks up, it should be interesting to see where it ends.
I base what I believe solely on evidence.
A lot of the conflicts I see on this forum tend to come down to this. many people try to prove things using science to people who believe one must journey inside their mind (or soul) for the truth, and rarely care about empirical evidence. I would say the inward journey(ie:platos idea of knowledge) is irrational.
How about you? if this thread picks up, it should be interesting to see where it ends.
Free_Marxet
The inward perspective is only irrational from an outward perspective. The inward perspective makes perfect sense from an inward perspective. Why wouldn't you pursue the lifestyle and the belief system that you personally find most practical and effective for yourself? You can say the inward perspective is irratonal, but you can only make that claim from the narrow scope of your own outward perspective, so you can't definitively say that the inward perspective IS irrational. It is irrational to YOU, so you pursue the outward perspective because it better fits your own belief system...and that is exactly what the inward perspective is. In essence, you used the inward perspective to achieve your outward perspective. Thus, you are saying what you yourself have done is irrational. In the end, everyone fundamentally uses the inward perspective. That's just my opinion.
Also, the outward and inward perspectives are irrelevant to science and religion. You can introspect through obtaining knowledge of your external surroundings, the universe. Similarly, you can better understand the outside world by obtaining knowledge of yourself and your own emotional or psychological tendencies. Ultimately, you lack an argument and reasoning to support it.
Well that entirely depends on what knowledge we're talking about.
If it's the knowledge of what created the universe, obviously I'm not going to find that through introspection.
If it's the knowledge of why I like a piece of music, obviously I'm not going to find someone who will tell me that.
[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"]
A lot of the conflicts I see on this forum tend to come down to this. many people try to prove things using science to people who believe one must journey inside their mind (or soul) for the truth, and rarely care about empirical evidence. I would say the inward journey(ie:platos idea of knowledge) is irrational.
How about you? if this thread picks up, it should be interesting to see where it ends.
its_me_
The inward perspective is only irrational from an outward perspective. The inward perspective makes perfect sense from an inward perspective. Why wouldn't you pursue the lifestyle and the belief system that you personally find most practical and effective for yourself? You can say the inward perspective is irratonal, but you can only make that claim from the narrow scope of your own outward perspective, so you can't definitively say that the inward perspective IS irrational. It is irrational to YOU, so you pursue the outward perspective because it better fits your own belief system...and that is exactly what the inward perspective is. In essence, you used the inward perspective to achieve your outward perspective. Thus, you are saying what you yourself have done is irrational. In the end, everyone fundamentally uses the inward perspective. That's just my opinion.
Also, the outward and inward perspectives are irrelevant to science and religion. You can introspect through obtaining knowledge of your external surroundings, the universe. Similarly, you can better understand the outside world by obtaining knowledge of yourself and your own emotional or psychological tendencies. Ultimately, you lack an argument and reasoning to support it.
Many cultures have tried to find the truth by introspection only to get to different results everytime. Ive never seen a situation where its benefitted anyone. A good example of this is what many older asian societies called Chi. They observed the fact that gravity was there, and had an inward journey of sorts to try and use it and it never came to fruition. Newton figured out what it actually was by using science. Ive never seen a situation where platos rationalism has ever produced results, and plato ASSUMED the good and forms and such.Its entirely plausible that theres a materialistic/deterministic reasoning behind your taste in musicWell that entirely depends on what knowledge we're talking about.
If it's the knowledge of what created the universe, obviously I'm not going to find that through introspection.
If it's the knowledge of why I like a piece of music, obviously I'm not going to find someone who will tell me that.
GabuEx
Its entirely plausible that theres a materialistic/deterministic reasoning behind your taste in musicFree_Marxet
I'm sure that it's possible to determine certain sounds or collections of sounds that create stimulations in certain parts of the brain that have grown to be viewed as positive sensations, and to explain what caused the growth of that perception.
Whether or not that actually answers the question is entirely up for debate, however.
[QUOTE="its_me_"][QUOTE="Free_Marxet"]
A lot of the conflicts I see on this forum tend to come down to this. many people try to prove things using science to people who believe one must journey inside their mind (or soul) for the truth, and rarely care about empirical evidence. I would say the inward journey(ie:platos idea of knowledge) is irrational.
How about you? if this thread picks up, it should be interesting to see where it ends.
Free_Marxet
The inward perspective is only irrational from an outward perspective. The inward perspective makes perfect sense from an inward perspective. Why wouldn't you pursue the lifestyle and the belief system that you personally find most practical and effective for yourself? You can say the inward perspective is irratonal, but you can only make that claim from the narrow scope of your own outward perspective, so you can't definitively say that the inward perspective IS irrational. It is irrational to YOU, so you pursue the outward perspective because it better fits your own belief system...and that is exactly what the inward perspective is. In essence, you used the inward perspective to achieve your outward perspective. Thus, you are saying what you yourself have done is irrational. In the end, everyone fundamentally uses the inward perspective. That's just my opinion.
Also, the outward and inward perspectives are irrelevant to science and religion. You can introspect through obtaining knowledge of your external surroundings, the universe. Similarly, you can better understand the outside world by obtaining knowledge of yourself and your own emotional or psychological tendencies. Ultimately, you lack an argument and reasoning to support it.
Many cultures have tried to find the truth by introspection only to get to different results everytime. Ive never seen a situation where its benefitted anyone. A good example of this is what many older asian societies called Chi. They observed the fact that gravity was there, and had an inward journey of sorts to try and use it and it never came to fruition. Newton figured out what it actually was by using science. Ive never seen a situation where platos rationalism has ever produced results, and plato ASSUMED the good and forms and such.You might be right, if we were emotionless machines. We're not. We're humans. We have feelings, we each have a unique mental process, and we all have an emotional breaking point. To say that the development of self and knowledge of self are useless is to say the human consciousness is useless.
Besides, you haven't defined the scope of your argument at all. What is "knowledge"? What are you even talking about? Venturing into space? Exploring the ocean? Calculating astrophysics problems? Of course those can't be done by worshipping or meditating. No one ever thought they could be. You're referring to two completely separate spheres of "knowledge," or "pursuits," which have little relationship to one another and which are not mutually exclusive. This thread is just kind of...pointless.
Also, while we're pursuing knowledge, you might want to pursue a dictionary. Persuit? Benefitted? Come on, man.
Many cultures have tried to find the truth by introspection only to get to different results everytime. Ive never seen a situation where its benefitted anyone. A good example of this is what many older asian societies called Chi. They observed the fact that gravity was there, and had an inward journey of sorts to try and use it and it never came to fruition. Newton figured out what it actually was by using science. Ive never seen a situation where platos rationalism has ever produced results, and plato ASSUMED the good and forms and such.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="its_me_"]
The inward perspective is only irrational from an outward perspective. The inward perspective makes perfect sense from an inward perspective. Why wouldn't you pursue the lifestyle and the belief system that you personally find most practical and effective for yourself? You can say the inward perspective is irratonal, but you can only make that claim from the narrow scope of your own outward perspective, so you can't definitively say that the inward perspective IS irrational. It is irrational to YOU, so you pursue the outward perspective because it better fits your own belief system...and that is exactly what the inward perspective is. In essence, you used the inward perspective to achieve your outward perspective. Thus, you are saying what you yourself have done is irrational. In the end, everyone fundamentally uses the inward perspective. That's just my opinion.
Also, the outward and inward perspectives are irrelevant to science and religion. You can introspect through obtaining knowledge of your external surroundings, the universe. Similarly, you can better understand the outside world by obtaining knowledge of yourself and your own emotional or psychological tendencies. Ultimately, you lack an argument and reasoning to support it.
its_me_
You might be right, if we were emotionless machines. We're not. We're humans. We have feelings, we each have a unique mental process, and we all have an emotional breaking point. To say that the development of self and knowledge of self are useless is to say the human consciousness is useless.
Besides, you haven't defined the scope of your argument at all. What is "knowledge"? What are you even talking about? Venturing into space? Exploring the ocean? Calculating astrophysics problems? Of course those can't be done by worshipping or meditating. No one ever thought they could be. You're referring to two completely separate spheres of "knowledge," or "pursuits," which have little relationship to one another and which are not mutually exclusive. This thread is just kind of...pointless.
Also, while we're pursuing knowledge, you might want to pursue a dictionary. Persuit? Benefitted? Come on, man.
All animals have emotions. Emotions are merely chemicals in your brain reacting. I dont think the development of a person is useless, but to say mankind has a spirit or that you must do some mystical quest of sorts is wrong on every level. the development of ones self could be answered by many empirical viewpoints. We would just have to get specific in order to establish what were talking about when saying "development of self"
Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts (but at the same time he did say it was impossible to find "The Good"). That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.
Ah philosophy....while engaging it's not fact.
[QUOTE="its_me_"]
[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] Many cultures have tried to find the truth by introspection only to get to different results everytime. Ive never seen a situation where its benefitted anyone. A good example of this is what many older asian societies called Chi. They observed the fact that gravity was there, and had an inward journey of sorts to try and use it and it never came to fruition. Newton figured out what it actually was by using science. Ive never seen a situation where platos rationalism has ever produced results, and plato ASSUMED the good and forms and such.Free_Marxet
You might be right, if we were emotionless machines. We're not. We're humans. We have feelings, we each have a unique mental process, and we all have an emotional breaking point. To say that the development of self and knowledge of self are useless is to say the human consciousness is useless.
Besides, you haven't defined the scope of your argument at all. What is "knowledge"? What are you even talking about? Venturing into space? Exploring the ocean? Calculating astrophysics problems? Of course those can't be done by worshipping or meditating. No one ever thought they could be. You're referring to two completely separate spheres of "knowledge," or "pursuits," which have little relationship to one another and which are not mutually exclusive. This thread is just kind of...pointless.
Also, while we're pursuing knowledge, you might want to pursue a dictionary. Persuit? Benefitted? Come on, man.
All animals have emotions. Emotions are merely chemicals in your brain reacting. I dont think the development of a person is useless, but to say mankind has a spirit or that you must do some mystical quest of sorts is wrong on every level. the development of ones self could be answered by many empirical viewpoints. We would just have to get specific in order to establish what were talking about when saying "development of self"
Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts (but at the same time he did say it was impossible to find "The Good"). That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.
Like the guy you just quoted mention.. How do you know that someones inward journey is not leading them to the ultimate truth? The answer is that you dont know. An outward journey for truth may seem more logical however, if we can not find the full truth from an outward journey, following an inward journey wouldnt be illogical.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="its_me_"]
You might be right, if we were emotionless machines. We're not. We're humans. We have feelings, we each have a unique mental process, and we all have an emotional breaking point. To say that the development of self and knowledge of self are useless is to say the human consciousness is useless.
Besides, you haven't defined the scope of your argument at all. What is "knowledge"? What are you even talking about? Venturing into space? Exploring the ocean? Calculating astrophysics problems? Of course those can't be done by worshipping or meditating. No one ever thought they could be. You're referring to two completely separate spheres of "knowledge," or "pursuits," which have little relationship to one another and which are not mutually exclusive. This thread is just kind of...pointless.
Also, while we're pursuing knowledge, you might want to pursue a dictionary. Persuit? Benefitted? Come on, man.
AngelNeo00
All animals have emotions. Emotions are merely chemicals in your brain reacting. I dont think the development of a person is useless, but to say mankind has a spirit or that you must do some mystical quest of sorts is wrong on every level. the development of ones self could be answered by many empirical viewpoints. We would just have to get specific in order to establish what were talking about when saying "development of self"
Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts (but at the same time he did say it was impossible to find "The Good"). That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.
Like the guy you just quoted mention.. How do you know that someones inward journey is not leading them to the ultimate truth? The answer is that you dont know. An outward journey for truth may seem more logical however, if we can not find the full truth from an outward journey, following an inward journey wouldnt be illogical. Arguments from ignorance are pretty low. Just because you dont know, doesnt mean it happens. You dont KNOW if there are ice monsters that live on pluto. Until its observed and tested its useless.[QUOTE="its_me_"][QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] Many cultures have tried to find the truth by introspection only to get to different results everytime. Ive never seen a situation where its benefitted anyone. A good example of this is what many older asian societies called Chi. They observed the fact that gravity was there, and had an inward journey of sorts to try and use it and it never came to fruition. Newton figured out what it actually was by using science. Ive never seen a situation where platos rationalism has ever produced results, and plato ASSUMED the good and forms and such.Free_Marxet
You might be right, if we were emotionless machines. We're not. We're humans. We have feelings, we each have a unique mental process, and we all have an emotional breaking point. To say that the development of self and knowledge of self are useless is to say the human consciousness is useless.
Besides, you haven't defined the scope of your argument at all. What is "knowledge"? What are you even talking about? Venturing into space? Exploring the ocean? Calculating astrophysics problems? Of course those can't be done by worshipping or meditating. No one ever thought they could be. You're referring to two completely separate spheres of "knowledge," or "pursuits," which have little relationship to one another and which are not mutually exclusive. This thread is just kind of...pointless.
Also, while we're pursuing knowledge, you might want to pursue a dictionary. Persuit? Benefitted? Come on, man.
Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts. That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.If you interpret Plato that strictly (which I think is a mistake), then I will refer you to my first post. You can't say the inward perspective is irrational when you're looking at it through the lense of the outward perspective. That's the same thing as believing, similarly to Plato, that you can understand introspective meditation a priori by simply looking at it externally. You're doing exactly what you say Plato did, but in reverse.
Also, if you're arguing in favor of sensory data as a basis for rational thought, then you're arguing that what we see, hear, feel etc. is reality. You have ignored the fact that sensory data is subject to interpretation by the individual. It might motivate, or rather stimulate, people to do different things, and this is why modern pragmatism revolves around sensory perception. Sensory data is perceived in various ways and therefore creates different realities for different people. Pragmatism states that each person must do with his perceptions whatever will allow him to continue to flourish as a person, and only introspection can draw appropriate conclusions about the way to best flourish as a person, because it's different for every human being. Consequently, your argument for sensory data as true, rational "knowledge" ultimately still supports the "inward perspective."
[QUOTE="AngelNeo00"][QUOTE="Free_Marxet"]Like the guy you just quoted mention.. How do you know that someones inward journey is not leading them to the ultimate truth? The answer is that you dont know. An outward journey for truth may seem more logical however, if we can not find the full truth from an outward journey, following an inward journey wouldnt be illogical. Arguments from ignorance are pretty low. Just because you dont know, doesnt mean it happens. You dont KNOW if there are ice monsters that live on pluto. Until its observed and tested its useless. They may be low but they are hard to dispute regardless. Thats why when it come to arguments of belief is best to stay neutral and consider both belief since most likely you wouldn't know which belief is correct.All animals have emotions. Emotions are merely chemicals in your brain reacting. I dont think the development of a person is useless, but to say mankind has a spirit or that you must do some mystical quest of sorts is wrong on every level. the development of ones self could be answered by many empirical viewpoints. We would just have to get specific in order to establish what were talking about when saying "development of self"
Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts (but at the same time he did say it was impossible to find "The Good"). That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.
Free_Marxet
Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts. That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="its_me_"]
You might be right, if we were emotionless machines. We're not. We're humans. We have feelings, we each have a unique mental process, and we all have an emotional breaking point. To say that the development of self and knowledge of self are useless is to say the human consciousness is useless.
Besides, you haven't defined the scope of your argument at all. What is "knowledge"? What are you even talking about? Venturing into space? Exploring the ocean? Calculating astrophysics problems? Of course those can't be done by worshipping or meditating. No one ever thought they could be. You're referring to two completely separate spheres of "knowledge," or "pursuits," which have little relationship to one another and which are not mutually exclusive. This thread is just kind of...pointless.
Also, while we're pursuing knowledge, you might want to pursue a dictionary. Persuit? Benefitted? Come on, man.
its_me_
If you interpret Plato that strictly (which I think is a mistake), then I will refer you to my first post. You can't say the inward perspective is irrational when you're looking at it through the lense of the outward perspective. That's the same thing as believing, similarly to Plato, that you can understand introspective meditation a priori by simply looking at it externally. You're doing exactly what you say Plato did, but in reverse.
Also, if you're arguing in favor of sensory data as a basis for rational thought, then you're arguing that what we see, hear, feel etc. is reality. You have ignored the fact that sensory data is subject to interpretation by the individual. It might motivate, or rather stimulate, people to do different things, and this is why modern pragmatism revolves around sensory perception. Sensory data is perceived in various ways and therefore creates different realities for different people. Pragmatism states that each person must do with his perceptions whatever will allow him to continue to flourish as a person, and only introspection can draw appropriate conclusions about the way to best flourish as a person, because it's different for every human being. Consequently, your argument for sensory data as true, rational "knowledge" ultimately still supports the "inward perspective."
I only take Plato strictly because Plato himself was VERY strict. Sensory data is not always valid, which is why we have the scientific method. If Scientists believed that the first observable conclusion was truth we would know next to nothing about anything.[QUOTE="its_me_"][QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] Thats not true at all, Plato for example thought he could understand reality with an inward journey and a priori concepts. That tends to be the basis of his rationalism. He throws away sensory data and believes its useless. Who cares if I spell it wrong? 1) Its a forum 2) Its close enough to the point where you read it and knew what I was saying anyway. A correction is fine and welcomed, but youre being a baby.Free_Marxet
If you interpret Plato that strictly (which I think is a mistake), then I will refer you to my first post. You can't say the inward perspective is irrational when you're looking at it through the lense of the outward perspective. That's the same thing as believing, similarly to Plato, that you can understand introspective meditation a priori by simply looking at it externally. You're doing exactly what you say Plato did, but in reverse.
Also, if you're arguing in favor of sensory data as a basis for rational thought, then you're arguing that what we see, hear, feel etc. is reality. You have ignored the fact that sensory data is subject to interpretation by the individual. It might motivate, or rather stimulate, people to do different things, and this is why modern pragmatism revolves around sensory perception. Sensory data is perceived in various ways and therefore creates different realities for different people. Pragmatism states that each person must do with his perceptions whatever will allow him to continue to flourish as a person, and only introspection can draw appropriate conclusions about the way to best flourish as a person, because it's different for every human being. Consequently, your argument for sensory data as true, rational "knowledge" ultimately still supports the "inward perspective."
I only take Plato strictly because Plato himself was VERY strict. Sensory data is not always valid, which is why we have the scientific method. If Scientists believed that the first observable conclusion was truth we would know next to nothing about anything.No scientific method can be applied to the way that sensory data stimulate the brain, because different brains have different physiological reactions to the same stimuli. You didn't respond to my argument.
I only take Plato strictly because Plato himself was VERY strict. Sensory data is not always valid, which is why we have the scientific method. If Scientists believed that the first observable conclusion was truth we would know next to nothing about anything.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="its_me_"]
If you interpret Plato that strictly (which I think is a mistake), then I will refer you to my first post. You can't say the inward perspective is irrational when you're looking at it through the lense of the outward perspective. That's the same thing as believing, similarly to Plato, that you can understand introspective meditation a priori by simply looking at it externally. You're doing exactly what you say Plato did, but in reverse.
Also, if you're arguing in favor of sensory data as a basis for rational thought, then you're arguing that what we see, hear, feel etc. is reality. You have ignored the fact that sensory data is subject to interpretation by the individual. It might motivate, or rather stimulate, people to do different things, and this is why modern pragmatism revolves around sensory perception. Sensory data is perceived in various ways and therefore creates different realities for different people. Pragmatism states that each person must do with his perceptions whatever will allow him to continue to flourish as a person, and only introspection can draw appropriate conclusions about the way to best flourish as a person, because it's different for every human being. Consequently, your argument for sensory data as true, rational "knowledge" ultimately still supports the "inward perspective."
its_me_
No scientific method can be applied to the way that sensory data stimulate the brain, because different brains have different physiological reactions to the same stimuli. You didn't respond to my argument.
Sensory data is all we have to understand reality, which is why we have the scientific method to try and remove errors and find objective facts. I dont know what I didnt answer, i just see you saying the same things or explaining them further. Your points on pragmatism arent really important in the conext of this thread and werent really an argument so much as an explaination, the last sentence I think you need to explain further. Point it out and ill answer it tomorrow because im going to bed.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment