Is It Okay To Be Stupid - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is It Okay To Be Stupid

Yes, It is okay to be stupid
17
47%
No, It is not okay to be stupid
12
33%
Other
7
19%
#14866792
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. But such intuitions must always be consistent with rational thought, even though they cannot be reached by rational thought. After all, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem may have demonstrated that any sufficiently complex system of propositions can (and in fact must) contain propositions which cannot be derived from its axioms, but those unreachable propositions are always consistent with propositions which can be derived from the axioms; in other words, they are still part of the axiomatic system. Intuition can, after all, lead us astray, and rationality and logic can act as a check on our wilder flights of fancy.


I think it’s a matter of finding a point of equilibrium between intuition and rationality. Intuition left to run wild is arbitrary and destructive while cold rationality separated from intuition or compassion will enclose us in a deathlike shell devoid of life. Or it may be a matter of transcending the duality of intuition and rationality to be whole.

I don't believe the world can be known by rationality, not by axiomatic systems and not by laws of nature. The laws that apply in our part of the universe may not apply elsewhere under different conditions. Anyways, since the universe cannot be finite, we cannot arrive at complete knowledge by a binary rationality build on the duality of finite/infinite, being/non-being, small/big, etc. It is only by transcending the duality of our rational thinking that we can intuit the truth.

Our rational thinking is conditioned by utilitarian needs such as a primate's need to know that he grasps a fruit or does not grasp a fruit, where the English word "grasp" (Greifen/Begreifen in German, saisir in French) both mean to have and to know (the Chinese pictogram for to have shows a hand grasping a piece of meat). This duality of our rational thinking has determined our thought patterns because it was essential for our survival, but it cannot answer primary questions.


RhetoricThug wrote:Finding peace within the paradox beyond everything (1) and nothing (0).

I think so. Or should I say I don't think so :?:

I wonder if Descartes was right when he said "I think therefore I am?" If thinking, ie. the act of reflecting on reality, distances us from "just being" and splits the world into thinker and thought object, it may be more correct to say that "I think therefore I am not." But then thinking too may be a form of being.
#14866796
@Atlantis : I don't know what you mean by "transcending the duality of rational thought" in order to intuit the true meaning of things. This way of thinking seems to be based on the assumption that there are two 'sides' to the world: its surface appearances and its hidden, Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich). I would merely point out that this division of the world is itself based on dualistic thinking. After all, ultimately there can be no dualistic distinction between appearance and inner reality, if all is One. There is a famous ancient Greek legend about two painters whose work was regarded as being uncannily lifelike and realistic. Their rivalry was such that they challenged each other to a contest: whoever could paint the most convincingly illusionistic picture would win. One of the artists painted a bunch of grapes on a plate, and they were so realistic that the birds came down and tried to peck the grapes. The other artist then presented his picture, covered with a curtain. His rival asked him to open the curtain to unveil his painting, to which the artist replied that the curtain was the painting. He won the contest. Do you see my meaning? There is nothing 'hidden' behind the surface appearances of the world, just as there was nothing hidden behind the curtain in the painting. In fact, the curtain was the 'hidden reality'. We can never open that curtain, not even intuitively, because there is not and cannot be anything hidden behind it. The world is surface all the way down.... Another perspective: one of the Buddhist philosophers two millennia ago put forward four propositions which encapsulated his view of the nature of reality. These were:
(1) the world is real
(2) the world is an illusion
(3) the world is both real and an illusion
(4) the world is neither real nor an illusion
All four of these propositions are true simultaneously. If your mind can grasp that insight, then you will achieve enlightenment. Either that, or you'll have a brain embolism. One or the other. Lol.
#14866803
Or you can say; The World is real, but our perception of it is an illusion.

But how do you know that the world is real, anasawad? Do you see the problem....? :)
#14866805
Simple; We exist, and thus there must be a world. Even if we're in a simulation, the existence of the simulation means that existence exist which means some sort of world. :p

Again, you're assuming that even if the surface appearance of things is an illusion, there must be a 'real' world hidden behind that illusion and which ontologically supports it. This assumption is itself merely part of the dualistic thinking which traps us in illusion. There is no 'really real' world hiding behind the curtain, anasawad.
#14866810
@Potemkin
Since we're talking, then there is existence. Its that simple.
Regardless of how the "real" world is, since there is existence, then there is a world.
Whats the proof ? We're talking so we exist.

Our perception may be an illusion, and it is; But nevertheless there is existence and that can not be denied irregardless of how much you're trying to circle around it.
#14866811
Since we're talking, then there is existence. Its that simple.
Regardless of how the "real" world is, since there is existence, then there is a world.
Whats the proof ? We're talking so we exist.

Our perception may be an illusion, and it is; But nevertheless there is existence and that can not be denied irregardless of how much you're trying to circle around it.

@anasawad

When Samuel Johnson was informed of Bishop Berkeley's idea that the world is unreal and is merely artificially constructed in our minds from our sense-impressions, he thought about it for a few seconds, then he kicked a stone lying in his path and exclaimed, "I refute him thus!" :lol:

But in fact, the stone could be an illusion, the foot which kicks it could be an illusion, and the sensation of pain in Dr Johnson's mind could be an illusion too. We simply have no way of knowing. There is no ontological grounding for our sense of reality. That is the point.
#14866812
@Potemkin
And I will repeat because you apparently didn't read the post considering that you answered in a completely irrelevant path.
It does NOT matter what the real world is or how it is. It does NOT matter whether we're free or in a simulation or any scenario you want to make up.
It does NOT matter that our perception of the world is an illusion. And It does NOT matter that we might never know how the real world is.

Because by the mere fact that we exist, then there must be an existence; And if there is an existence, then there must be a world in which all exists within.

And trying to say that we don't exist would be, in all simplicity, retarded.


You might be able to deduct the previous points from this part:
Since we're talking, then there is existence. Its that simple.
Regardless of how the "real" world is, since there is existence, then there is a world.
Whats the proof ? We're talking so we exist.
Last edited by anasawad on 30 Nov 2017 00:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Beren
#14866813
But who cares about a stone? Since it's sex anasawad has faith in, maybe he should rather try to comprehend this grand philosophical problem by questioning himself whether sex is real or it's just a mere illusion.
#14866839
@Potemkin:
Obviously, your Buddhist philosopher was high on loco weed or some type of hallucinogen. Buddhism is false anyway. In other words, it is stupid.
By B0ycey
#14866846
The Buddist has to be correct because elements exist and so does the illusion of them.

For example, a rainbow does not exist, but the elements to create the illusion does. The same applies with matter.

So if you look at the four points, you can reach a conclusion:

(1) the world is real (existence)
(2) the world is an illusion (Perception)
(3) the world is both real and an illusion (our brains perception of existence (mind))
(4) the world is neither real nor an illusion (The things we do not understand or ever have the ability to understand because they are not in a format that we can accept exists)

All four of these propositions are true simultaneously. So he was correct. And perhaps if you understand this then you could also understand stupidity/smartness. To accept we are not perfect and can be stupid is quite smart - in the sense that you accept reality for what it is. A perfect world full of imperfections. A world that is an illusion of reality. We are in the matrix. Only Agent Smith is also part of the illusion and not fighting Neo for machines.
#14866853
@Hindsite Buddhism is as valid a religion as Christianity, and much older.

If Buddhism is stupid, then Christianity is moreso.
#14866857
Obviously, your Buddhist philosopher was high on loco weed or some type of hallucinogen. Buddhism is false anyway. In other words, it is stupid.

Not everything you don't understand is 'stupid', Hindsite. Realising this fact is a necessary part of becoming a mature human being. :)
#14866875
Potemkin wrote:One or the other. Lol.

You see? The problem is that you cannot transcend duality because it is inherent in rational thinking, nor can we express non-duality because language is based on duality. Dualistic rationality prevents you from seeing/being the whole, which can only be an act of divine intuition. That's were intuition comes into it. Is that weird? Not to me. Intuition isn't just about Enlightenment with a big "E," intuition is at the base of everything, in our daily life, in art, in religion, and yes, even in science. Heisenberg worked out the mathematical principles of quantum physics. But he didn't know how he got there. The idea to investigate in that direction came to him while on a hike on the cliffs of Helgoland during a holiday. He didn't reach that idea by rational thought, it just came to him. That too is intuition.

Of course there is nothing hidden, we are just not aware of reality, just like we are no longer aware of our dream 5 minutes after waking, even though the dream seemed very real when we were asleep. In this too, your only problem is dualism, ie. the duality of hidden/not hidden, surface/not surface. The ultimate reality has to encompass the whole, including the opposites, which dual rationality cannot achieve. As a child of his time, de Cusa used Euclidean geometry to describe his view of god and the world, yet his findings are compatible with the non-duality of Mahayana Buddhism. He was the first to transcend the concept of the finite universe of pre-Copernican cosmology. In his view, the opposites coincide in the absolute, which transcends them, and the learned ignorance is the intellectual act that grasps this relationship which transcends rational thought.

I don't know what you mean by "transcending the duality of rational thought" in order to intuit the true meaning of things. This way of thinking seems to be based on the assumption that there are two 'sides' to the world: its surface appearances and its hidden, Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich). I would merely point out that this division of the world is itself based on dualistic thinking.

That's only due to the dualistic nature of language. We cannot express non-duality by dualistic methods, other than by paradox. The ultimate reality doesn't distinguish between surface and the thing-in-itself, nor between transcended and transcending. We cannot assume that god or the ultimate reality has the limitations of human logic. That would be a small god created by us in our own image. The original sin of Christian/Western thinking is the idea of a creator god separated from her creation. God is immanent in all things and all things are one.

The deeper physics looks into matter, the more we find that there is no matter. The atom is dissolved into particles, and the particles, quarks, etc., are so fleeting that we can't pin them down as something substantial. Do we see a wave or a particle? We can't locate the position of the particle if we know its speed. Thus, quantum physics arrives at a worldview that transcends mind and matter. There is nothing, sunyata. If there is something, it is "potentiality." The antithesis of the limited deterministic universe of our rational thinking. Everything is possible. There is unlimited hope.
#14866928
I wonder if Descartes was right when he said "I think therefore I am?" If thinking, ie. the act of reflecting on reality, distances us from "just being" and splits the world into thinker and thought object, it may be more correct to say that "I think therefore I am not." But then thinking too may be a form of being.
Being present creates an information bias. Descartes must be an expression of 'what is,' because he's a finite sign and symptom of everything else. Just like everything else, Descartes had been captured by the 'sea-change vortex' and the very act of being present provided him with "I think therefore I am." Nonetheless, it's our faith in existence which should provide us with a statement like "I think therefore I believe," because “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy." So you see, if everything that IS must always be in the middle of what isn't, living out your life is an act of faith.

Atlantis wrote:You see? The problem is that you cannot transcend duality because it is inherent in rational thinking, nor can we express non-duality because language is based on duality. Dualistic rationality prevents you from seeing/being the whole, which can only be an act of divine intuition. That's were intuition comes into it. Is that weird? Not to me. Intuition isn't just about Enlightenment with a big "E," intuition is at the base of everything, in our daily life, in art, in religion, and yes, even in science. Heisenberg worked out the mathematical principles of quantum physics. But he didn't know how he got there. The idea to investigate in that direction came to him while on a hike on the cliffs of Helgoland during a holiday. He didn't reach that idea by rational thought, it just came to him. That too is intuition.
Yep, my philosophical investigations probe such topics.

Of course there is nothing hidden, we are just not aware of reality, just like we are no longer aware of our dream 5 minutes after waking, even though the dream seemed very real when we were asleep. In this too, your only problem is dualism, ie. the duality of hidden/not hidden, surface/not surface. The ultimate reality has to encompass the whole, including the opposites, which dual rationality cannot achieve. As a child of his time, de Cusa used Euclidean geometry to describe his view of god and the world, yet his findings are compatible with the non-duality of Mahayana Buddhism. He was the first to transcend the concept of the finite universe of pre-Copernican cosmology. In his view, the opposites coincide in the absolute, which transcends them, and the learned ignorance is the intellectual act that grasps this relationship which transcends rational thought.
Yes, attention is a limited (re)source, thus any state of awareness plays peek-a-boo with 'reality.' Attention is tactile, because we're a working part of what is, we reach out and touch what is by interfacing with everything else.

IS & Isn't, and after-all, we see with our minds, not with our eyes. The medium is the massage. Consciousness is the medium, and therefore we must be its message. The whole point about dialectic is the ultimate identity of the universal and the individual. The individual is universal and the universal is the individual. How can an individual abstract its identity from itself? It wouldn't know what it is, therefore, its identity must be abstracted from the whole or what is 'happening.'


That's only due to the dualistic nature of language. We cannot express non-duality by dualistic methods, other than by paradox. The ultimate reality doesn't distinguish between surface and the thing-in-itself, nor between transcended and transcending. We cannot assume that god or the ultimate reality has the limitations of human logic. That would be a small god created by us in our own image. The original sin of Christian/Western thinking is the idea of a creator god separated from her creation. God is immanent in all things and all things are one.

The deeper physics looks into matter, the more we find that there is no matter. The atom is dissolved into particles, and the particles, quarks, etc., are so fleeting that we can't pin them down as something substantial. Do we see a wave or a particle? We can't locate the position of the particle if we know its speed. Thus, quantum physics arrives at a worldview that transcends mind and matter. There is nothing, sunyata. If there is something, it is "potentiality." The antithesis of the limited deterministic universe of our rational thinking. Everything is possible. There is unlimited hope.
:up: Nicely done.
#14866954
RhetoricThug wrote:Being present creates an information bias. Descartes must be an expression of 'what is,' because he's a finite sign and symptom of everything else. Just like everything else, Descartes had been captured by the 'sea-change vortex' and the very act of being present provided him with "I think therefore I am." Nonetheless, it's our faith in existence which should provide us with a statement like "I think therefore I believe," because “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy." So you see, if everything that IS must always be in the middle of what isn't, living out your life is an act of faith.

Leaving aside the duality of being and non-being, why do we need faith to live? To live is the natural state of living beings. The desire to terminate that life is then a pathological condition. Does a stone need a reason to be a stone or a dog a reason to be a dog? I don't need to torment myself with dark thoughts or with unfulfilled desires, I can simply enjoy life, no matter how miserable. A whiff of the fresh morning breeze can fill us with an unlimited joy, no golden towers can procure. Just to feel that life force flowing through us, call it love for all beings or whatever, is enough to want life.

Moreover, considering the vastness of the universe, human awareness must be a very rare thing, which won't return in innumerable eons. The Buddhists have this story to illustrate how rare human life is:

A blind turtle lives at the bottom of a vast ocean bed and surfaces just once every hundred years. A golden yoke floats on the vast ocean, blown here and there by the wind. What are the chances of the turtle surfacing at just the right time and in just the right place to be able to put its head through the yoke? Human life is even more rare.

Why throw away that rare gift on a whim? There is hope for awareness, for insight, until our very last breath, or perhaps even beyond.
#14867015
Potemkin wrote:Not everything you don't understand is 'stupid', Hindsite. Realising this fact is a necessary part of becoming a mature human being. :)

Yeah, some of them are just stoned out of their mind.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

The BBC is pushing the US State Dept's point of vi[…]

Syrian war thread

The sheepdog meets its master, the sapper who retu[…]

Right Wing Marxism?

Is it possible to be a right-wing Marxist? I've be[…]

Have you revised your precious views on this? ;)[…]