News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

A more complete view of Baruch's POV

Started by Baruch, July 20, 2015, 09:08:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

I have plastered this here and there over my many posts.  But I will try to hyper-summarize here ...

Metaphysics ... there is more to reality than rationality and materialism ... in fact I view reality as irrational and immaterial ... with occasional appearances of apparent rationality and materialism ... to prove the rule.  Metaphysics lays the groundwork both for itself, and for the next three areas.

Epistemology ... there is objective and subjective knowledge.  Usually the objective kind is developed by research specialists ... who provide layman's summaries to the rest of us.  Most of us are not logicians, mathematicians or scientists.  At most some of us might be technical workers ... who use the results of the research specialists in practical ways.  Subjective knowledge is the majority of what any human has .. and is the most important on a day to day basis.  At most ... objective knowledge is used by technical workers when at work.  This ends as soon as they get off work!

Ethics ... people of good will agree that there is a common good, and while private good is necessary (there is no common good without it) that it is not sufficient ... private good can't exist except in circumstances of common good.  Humans are social animals, and don't exist as feral wolf men ... even wolves live in packs and don't give birth to themselves.

Aesthetics ... there is much beauty to be admired ... both natural and man made.  For most of us, man made beauty is something we admire but don't create.  A bit like our relationship to the research sciences.  There is no point in discussing it too much ... we need to expose ourselves to it, to explore for ourselves what is beautiful.  And for a few of us, to make some of this beauty.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aitm

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

dtq123

I inspired this rant of POV's, my apologies :sad:
A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

Solitary

QuoteMetaphysics ... there is more to reality than rationality and materialism ... in fact I view reality as irrational and immaterial ... with occasional appearances of apparent rationality and materialism ... to prove the rule.  Metaphysics lays the groundwork both for itself, and for the next three areas.

If reality was irrational and immaterial, how could science keep moving ahead? Even quantum mechanics and field study show the world we live in is rational and material. Einstein proved that energy is particle in nature. Field mechanics by definition show that the world is mechanical. The laws of physics are based on the world being mechanical and rational.  Even the science of neurology shows the mind is a result of mechanical action and reaction. Metaphysics by definition shows it is beyond physics and irrational, unless you are Deepak Chopra. We live in a world of our mind that can be very irrational and emotional, but to confuse that subjective reality with objective reality is at best neurotic, and at its worst insane.
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Baruch

#4
Solitary - good reply ;-)

Reality is like chess.  The initial positions of the pieces are rational.  The rules for moving pieces are rational.  That is like classical physics.  Once the play has started (between two humans, not AI programs) the board starts to look more chaotic, it becomes less and less possible to trace how the pieces got to their present positions, because there is more than one alternative as to how that got there.  At best you can only assign probabilities.  This is like quantum physics.  Eventually the game is tied or it ends in checkmate.  Basically until that point, the game is live ... and once checkmate is achieved the game is dead.  The decisions made by the chess players involve much memory, intuition and mystery ... it simply isn't reasonable to try to calculate all possible positions and determine optimum moves based on that ... unless you are G-d.  Particularly bad players can hardly be called rational.  This is how irrationality arises out of a rational underlay.  Epiphenomenal (if you imagine that the game board is deciding the moves with a split personality that is).  Or we can admit that the game was in fact created by humans, as well as played by them.  So there is both objectivity and subjectivity here.  It is the subjectivity that is interesting ... why did he make that move, instead of some other move?  That is the humanistic.  The materialistic is just so much cardboard and plastic.  Subjective and objective aren't mutually exclusive.  Also the objective is a man made ordering set in a sea of human disorder.  We decide if it is a wave or a particle (but not what alternatives are available ... it isn't a kumquat).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

And if you haven't noticed yet ... I don't confuse the objective with the subjective ... but I relate the two, and I don't privilege the objective over the subjective ... because I am a human, not a machine.  Everyone is neurotic.  And in my case I am proudly insane ... I see no reason to pretend to be sane in an insane world ... that would be too neurotic!  I have no opinion on the genuineness of Deepak ... but I do know that the world is bigger than the rules of chess ... even if one uses dice per quantum theory to determine outcomes among those allowable (there are limits on what quantum theory allows).  Using dice to determine chess moves, might make it a more interesting game ... because there would be more unpredictability.  Card games like poker have more "features" than chess.  If the number of potential states of a brain is greater than the total number of particles of the universe ... how do you analyze that?  It would seem to me that the particles of the universe are derivative of the potential states of a brain, than the other way around.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.