XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2016 11:08 AM, brian mitchell wrote:   
      
   > Are you assuming that a pure reason exists independently of the mind   
   > that apprehends or intuits it? Or that philosophical ideas exist   
   > independently of the minds that conceive them?   
   >   
   > If there is a meta-structure informing and uniting all philosophies,   
   > must that not at least entail the primary structure of thought,   
   > without which there are no ideas or abstractions?   
   >   
   > I have often said that I see the concept of Truth as an Ur-concept,   
   > one so basic and necessary that thinking cannot get off the ground   
   > without it. True/ false is the prime ordering structure of thought,   
   > and therefore of all branches of philosophy, East or West. There are   
   > probably other overarching concepts to be identified.   
   >   
   > Truth is also the cornerstone of all religious doctrine, so I suppose   
   > you must include religion in your research material.   
   >   
   > As to being refuted, I notice that all the philosophers you mention   
   > are essentially transcendental in outlook and intent, even if not   
   > actual Transcendentalists proper. It seems from this that you have   
   > rejected Empiricism, and its position that there is nothing innate or   
   > a-priori in human experience or thought, which all derive from sensory   
   > input. How have you gotten past Empiricism?   
      
   If there is a meta-structure informing and uniting all   
   philosophies, must that not at least entail the primary   
   structure of thought, without which there are no ideas   
   or abstractions? Yes, but it is a part of the structure of   
   thought that is separate from and independent of   
   experience, which is what a priori means. This   
   independence from experience bars empiricism right   
   off from consideration. The quote from Michael   
   Friedman of Standford says in part:   
      
   <>   
      
   Whether pure reason exists independently of the mind   
   that apprehends or intuits it, or that philosophical ideas   
   exist independently of the minds that conceive them,   
   are metaphysical questions, and I limit myself to the   
   explanation of philosophy, which is like in science, as   
   Russell says: “Whatever we infer from perceptions it is   
   only structure that we can validly infer; and structure is   
   what can be expressed by mathematical logic,” and   
   “The only legitimate attitude about the physical world   
   seems to be one of complete agnosticism as regards all   
   but its mathematical properties.” In science, if you can   
   explain how some phenomena work, that's all you need   
   to do, the matter which underlies it being immaterial in   
   the explanation. Likewise, you can argue whether the   
   laws of physics and the theorems of math are inherent   
   in nature and need only be discovered, or they are   
   invented by the human mind, but that belongs to   
   metaphysics, not to science, which only tries to explain   
   the phenomena by equations free of content.   
      
   It is true that the concept of Truth is an Ur-concept, one   
   so basic and necessary that thinking cannot get off the   
   ground without it, and that true/ false is the prime   
   ordering structure of thought, and therefore of all   
   branches of philosophy, East or West, and that there are   
   probably other overarching concepts to be identified.   
   However, you have assumed too much, in that all such   
   concepts, however primitive to thought, are at most   
   inherent in thought, but you forget (or do not know) that   
   there are systems of thought that relegate all such   
   concepts, and all concepts, to a level lower than the   
   highest level, as in Neoplatonism. You should read up on   
   Neoplatonic hypostases, the first of which being the One   
   beyond being, therefore also before truth and all   
   concepts and judgments of whatever kind. So concept,   
   including those named by you, are (perhaps) valid once   
   thought is kicked up, but not before. Being and non-being,   
   yes and no, right and wrong, true and untrue, good and   
   evil fall off in the One, just as they fall off in the non-doing   
   of Buddhism and Daoism. In Chan, it is called the original   
   face. Madame Guyon and Fénelon talk volubly of such a   
   state. In it, there is no thought, therefore no reason, pure   
   and impure. Thought and reason enters only in the   
   justification of it.   
      
   As to your assertion, that Truth is also the cornerstone of   
   all religious doctrine, you forget that the Buddha says:   
   What and what they think it, it is otherwise, and LZ and ZZ   
   make fun of truth the whole time, laughing their face off   
   of it.   
      
   You keep charging in to confirm my accusations against   
   you, for free and unasked, namely that you are realist,   
   literalist and fundie follower of Jewish mythology. You   
   should return to Jewish mythology. It is native to you. It   
   oozes out from all your pores, indelibly. Are you a virgin   
   with regard to your own nature?   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)