Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

haider · 05-13-2007, 08:04 AM

Absvan,

There are three important themes in your last response that deserve some consideration:

1) Most of the explanation you have given is based on "empty terms": words that suggest a meaning, but don't give a precise definition of what these words mean. To list some of the most prominent terms: salvation, true nature, knowledge, ignorance.

You see, most philosophers would say: the true nature of man is X, Y or Z. The term "true nature" in itself is empty. What is this nature? And how can you prove that this is really the case?

You will find this same problem popping up in politics, where parties diametrically opposed to one another use the same terms to refer to opposite meanings. "Justice" and "freedom" have opposite meanings to a capitalist and a communist. To simply use those terms is, therefore, meaningless, unless you define what you actually mean by these terms. Nonetheless, people can feel so attached and moved by these terms, even though they don't know what's meant by them!!

2) What's most striking about your reply is that there is no evidence in support of it. Reality can be explained in so many ways, and all these explanations can make sense precisely because we are not linking these explanations to the evidence of reality. I can give you Greek mythology, or the Christian trinity or Islamic monotheism to explain what the world is like, but if these explanations are not tied to the evidence of reality, then they are the work of the imagination, and not of reality.

We can imagine castles on the clouds. In fact, we can even imagine what it would be like to live in such castles, but this does not mean that such castles exist.

3) My primary objection to SR and all its derivatives is that it is based on the neglect of the intellect, and the denial of sensory experience. If you seek to end the "chatter of the mind," then you are essentially exposing yourself to any belief, without evaluating what that belief is.

To me, any belief that seeks to silence the mind, or to claim that the truth can be known only through bypassing the mind is *promoting* ignorance, regardless of what claims to ultimate truth it pretends to have.

05-13-2007, 08:04 AM	#82 (permalink)
haider Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 23	Absvan, There are three important themes in your last response that deserve some consideration: 1) Most of the explanation you have given is based on "empty terms": words that suggest a meaning, but don't give a precise definition of what these words mean. To list some of the most prominent terms: salvation, true nature, knowledge, ignorance. You see, most philosophers would say: the true nature of man is X, Y or Z. The term "true nature" in itself is empty. What is this nature? And how can you prove that this is really the case? You will find this same problem popping up in politics, where parties diametrically opposed to one another use the same terms to refer to opposite meanings. "Justice" and "freedom" have opposite meanings to a capitalist and a communist. To simply use those terms is, therefore, meaningless, unless you define what you actually mean by these terms. Nonetheless, people can feel so attached and moved by these terms, even though they don't know what's meant by them!! 2) What's most striking about your reply is that there is no evidence in support of it. Reality can be explained in so many ways, and all these explanations can make sense precisely because we are not linking these explanations to the evidence of reality. I can give you Greek mythology, or the Christian trinity or Islamic monotheism to explain what the world is like, but if these explanations are not tied to the evidence of reality, then they are the work of the imagination, and not of reality. We can imagine castles on the clouds. In fact, we can even imagine what it would be like to live in such castles, but this does not mean that such castles exist. 3) My primary objection to SR and all its derivatives is that it is based on the neglect of the intellect, and the denial of sensory experience. If you seek to end the "chatter of the mind," then you are essentially exposing yourself to any belief, without evaluating what that belief is. To me, any belief that seeks to silence the mind, or to claim that the truth can be known only through bypassing the mind is promoting ignorance, regardless of what claims to ultimate truth it pretends to have.