Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The best book on Nietszche i've come across. Nietzsche elevated alongside Plato.

I am pointing out to you your own character.  You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between a valid argument and some random thought that was funny to you, or empty proclamations of the lunacy of your opponent's assertions.  These are not arguments; they are wastes of space, and they can only serve so as to aggravate the opponent, which is entirely against decorum, especially on a forum such as this.

My point is this: you have the sudden thought that he might be informed by skepticism; you latch onto it, and state it as if it were fact, never realising that it is simply an assumption.  In fact, I can tell you that Descartes diverges quite disastrously from Tradition, and that, Tradition predating Descartes, Eleison is not informed by skeptical arguments, but by - shock horror! - Tradition.  A very short and simple act of reasoning has established that your fantasy was incorrect, and that you wasted your own time and ours in deciding that it was meritorious enough to be posted in the middle of a discussion about the nature of reality.

I might go on to say, I have rarely interjected when you have made such assumptions about my own beliefs or character, except when those assumptions have stood in the way of our discussion.  Regardless, you have committed this folly repeatedly, and I think it only right that you should be hauled up on it before you get yourself knocked out in an argument over a pint.

Bill Hopkins, you saying cargest is decartes-crazy only highlights your inability to grasp the non-dual transcendence of subject/object he and eleison have been talking about. They are talking about being and knowing what is, because what knows itself is in the thing, otherwise it wouldn't exist. You seem to keep thinking they're talking about cartoons.

Quote
I don't see how it follows from the idea that we are conscious that Being in general possesses knowledge or consciousness!

We are being. Or, being is us.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Bill Hopkins, you saying cargest is decartes-crazy only highlights your inability to grasp the non-dual transcendence of subject/object he and eleison have been talking about. They are talking about being and knowing what is, because what knows itself is in the thing, otherwise it wouldn't exist. You seem to keep thinking they're talking about cartoons.

Quote
I don't see how it follows from the idea that we are conscious that Being in general possesses knowledge or consciousness!

We are being. Or, being is us.

I don't really understand what you mean with "because what knows itself is in the thing, otherwise it wouldn't exist".

It doesn't matter much, but I was talking to Eleison with my descarte comment. What matters is that I was noting what I thought to be a feature of his view he was outlining: the requirement to be philosophically justified at all times, and not to 'jump' from experience to an outside world? Is this wrong?

I will be the first to admit physicalists make this 'unfounded' jump. But if you grant this, 'objective' regularities and causal relationships in the world seem to come think and fast to our store of knowledge (how did we send man to the moon, if we haven't guaged how reality works via maths and physics in this case?).

I'm also thinking Eleison makes some kind of a jump, from experience to some kind of world or intersubjectivity (Being). I may be wrong, or conceiving the matter incorrectly.

I was thinking of the concept of decartes of the mind as a separate entity, like a ghost or something, I was really under the impression you thought cargest was like trippin on religiosity. Anyway, I admit to that being unfair, because I have never read this author, I just got this description of his idea about the mind. I actually don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to philosophy.

I agree with most of what you say: Religion is a tricky issue. From all that I said here, the only thing I keep is this: I agree with your views, the only difference is that, through reading, practice and real accounts I have come to believe there is such thing as phenomena which are not explained by science, like telepathy, premonition and others.

I know personally in my family accounts of people who dreamt or woke up nervous who later found out bad stuff had happened. Just recently in my house a mother started getting sick on the same time her son was in a car/bike accident. There are other things that happened too. Telepathy is most definetly real.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

I was thinking of the concept of decartes of the mind as a separate entity, like a ghost or something, I was really under the impression you thought cargest was like trippin on religiosity. Anyway, I admit to that being unfair, because I have never read this author, I just got this description of his idea about the mind. I actually don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to philosophy.

I'm no expert on Descartes, either. I took an undergraduate unit years ego.

I do think Cargest is trippin on religiosity, a bit! Have you read the thread on evolution? That's not necessarily a bad thing. People can be great people and, imo, have strange metaphysical beliefs. I'm not a new atheist. However when we're actually talking metaphysics/science etc I like to pursue people who I think have unfounded beliefs. Also, as I started this thread hoping to kindle some conversation with like minded people (Nietzscheans), and it got immediately hi-jacked by traditionalists, I went a bit harder.

I agree with most of what you say: Religion is a tricky issue. From all that I said here, the only thing I keep is this: I agree with your views, the only difference is that, through reading, practice and real accounts I have come to believe there is such thing as phenomena which are not explained by science, like telepathy, premonition and others.

I know personally in my family accounts of people who dreamt or woke up nervous who later found out bad stuff had happened. Just recently in my house a mother started getting sick on the same time her son was in a car/bike accident. There are other things that happened too. Telepathy is most definetly real.

I can't argue with your experiences. I can say i've never experienced anything like this.

(how did we send man to the moon, if we haven't guaged how reality works via maths and physics in this case?)

We've worked out how relativity works via mathematics and physics.  Relativity is not reality - nothing in relativity is absolute, nothing in relativity is permanent; relativity is the illusion of the cave, which seems to have taken you hook, line, and sinker, as with all other physicalists.  This is what happens when you use one intellective tool at the expense of all others and claim the unreality of absolutes - suddenly, there is no frame of reference for anything, the entire universe becomes internally relative and internally reliant (which is impossible, as the relative cannot support itself).  This is why I was confused by your charge of relativism - relativism is the folly of scientists, not of metaphysicians!  It never ceases to amuse me how misused or misunderstood a relatively (ha!) simple term can be.

I do think Cargest is trippin on religiosity, a bit! Have you read the thread on evolution? That's not necessarily a bad thing. People can be great people and, imo, have strange metaphysical beliefs. I'm not a new atheist. However when we're actually talking metaphysics/science etc I like to pursue people who I think have unfounded beliefs.

I'm tripping on my severely limited knowledge of Metaphysics, which can be certified, as opposed to Science, which can only be continually tested until falsified.  This is why the metaphysician focuses on eternals: things which do not change must be our starting point when we enquire into things that do change.  Otherwise, the nature of our enquiry might change while we're making it!

Our senses may or may not be reliable, but the most damning indictment against empiricism is that the physical is in a constant state of change!  We cannot know, axiomatically, that any physical law is constant; we can only assume from the evidence that this is so, in the area which has been measured, at the time when it was measured, for the objects which were measured.  In contrast, we can categorically know ourselves to be identical to that which is known; this is eternal.

I've planned to read this book http://books.google.com.br/books?id=RYHtBPiZVgsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR for a long time but I haven't owned it yet.

I have however browsed as it is available on googlebooks and if you do, you can find some interesting stuff related to the discussion.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!