XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Tang Huyen wrote:
> 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:
>
> < more narrowly scientific works, makes particularly good
> sense, I believe, within our present,
> post-logical-empiricist and post-Kuhnian situation in
> philosophy of science and scientific epistemology.>>
>
> 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.
In my experience when there is no thought there remains a kind of intuitive
knowing that fills the position of reason within the structure from which
thought has been removed.
>
> 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
>
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
