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

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Emperor_of_Algol

[1] 2 ... 5
But would you say that, after water was explained to be a chemical substance comprised of the molecules hydrogen and oxygen, we should have maintained the more traditional hypothesis that Water is a basic 'element' - simply because the latter understanding "survived through millennia"?

Discovering that water is made up of hyrdogen and oxygen, and "knowing" the exact nature of their interaction to produce the various states/phases of water, does not refute traditional knowledge of what water is. Forget the basic classical elements thing - what people have always known of water is that it is life-sustaining, and an integral part of nature, as well as our experience with it (imagine a natural landscape devoid of water, and think on how this affects living things even if they were carrying liters of bottled water). This knowledge does not change just because we know a bit about the molecular structure of water (to allay any suspicions that we now "know" what water is - this is just a description of how water fits into our atomic theory).

You mention that
science has clearly provided a more powerful way of penetrating into the structure of the world than a prior philosophy
. This is then backed up by examples of what modern science has achieved. The examples you have chosen are not exactly the zenith of science, but even if we chose others (say, the combustion engine, or generation, transmission and distribution of electiricty), they are not independent of what we may say falls outside the "bounds" of the modern scientific discipline. We can only go to the moon (meh), create a combustion engine, and use electricity if we know why these things are important, and what kind of impact they have on us. Their use is varied, and scientific knowledge has only "penetrated" the physical principles involved, and thus enabled us to achieve them.

What it has not done is give us any clue to why we should care at all, or to what particular uses to put our scientific knowledge. The further we go into the "why", the more we drift away from science, because it is inadequate. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd agree here. But I think this hasn't been emphasized enough.

If not, then why hold on the to the hypothesis that forms are entities in-themselves, existing in an entire realm of existence seperate from the physical world

I'm not sure that this is the most accurately-worded description of the debate (or part of the debate). The term 'separate' is what is misleading here. As far as I understand it, the physical can be seen as a 'manifestation' of the metaphysical, and that which is most easily experienced by us due to our basic physical nature. I know that many people have interpreted Plato as asserting the "separateness" or "independence" of the Forms; whether he meant this literally, or was trying to emphasize the higher and "closer to reality" nature of these descriptions, is debatable. Aristotle's criticism sheds some light. Regardless, and since I am not well-schooled enough on Plato or Aristotle, I would still assert this is a minor matter.

For us, the assumption that we are trying to iron out is whether anything non-physical exists which cannot be sufficiently, accurately, and completely explained by reducing to the physical. I do not think this type of reduction can achieve the latter. It comes down to "getting lost in the details" essentially.

Also, "survival through millennia" is not a good determinant of ontological truth. It might be if the relevant ontological beliefs (forms) were visible to natural selection, but they weren't. Whether you were a non-physicalist about forms had no implication to you getting away from a lion.

We cannot at once say that "given our past scientific knowledge, and how useful a descriptor of reality it has been, x y and z make sense" and "knowledge's surviving through years of added and possibly contrary knowledge, plus years of criticism, has no bearing on its truth". We are using the same idea in the latter (that time is the arbiter) to justify the essence of the former (historical knowledge of what science has achieved).

I do not understand the relation between truths and the darwinistic concept of natural selection. It is possible to survive natural selection as a savage brute without any knowledge of the matters we are talking about here. This does not make those matters any less or more true.

I would like to reiterate - there is applicability for both "scientific" and "traditional" (or "philosophical", to use the terms of the debate) explanations in understanding our universe, and indeed, it is difficult to imagine anything near a 'complete' explanation without both. I have an inkling this is part of the debate, although I don't see why it should be, as it is obvious. This definitely falls under the category of axiom.

So, back to the original topic - erm, what? People should read more Plato and Nietzsche? Does that sum it up? ;)

1. The most rational way of deciding between dualism vs physicalism is via a probabilistic route where the overall pool of evidence supporting each prospective hypothesis is weighed up. It is NOT via finding a few isolated holes in side 'x' and holding this up as a victory for side 'y', in the complete absense of any positive evidence for side 'y'.
2. Psychological (reductive) explanations of 'forms', and thus the lack of any need for metaphysical explanations of forms.
3. This leads into your idea that even if you have a physical explanation of something 'it is only a manifestation of metaphysical processes': There are deep problems with this idea, and the problem relates to the mechanisms by which non physical entities might somehow interact with physical entities.

I think number 1. here may be problematic. Why do we need to decide between "dualism vs physicalism"? I know it's so overused in this kind of debate, that it's almost a cliche, but I'm going to call "false dichotomy" here. Unless you mean by "dualism" - "the two aspecst of 'physical' and 'metaphysical'. If so, this assumption seems fair. I may have missed the post which defined dualism thus.

2. That if you have a credible physicalist explantion of something it is superflous to hold on to a non-physicalist explanation. There is nothing left to explain.

This may also be shaky. It's akin to saying "we've found one explanation for this. It seems consistent with other discoveries we've recently made. They haven't stood the test of time, but, for now, they make sense. Let's not bother with any other explanations, as they won't add to our knowledge." This type of thinking is dangerous in that it represents a regression, and too eager a willingness to throw away historical knowledge in the face of a framework of knowledge which not only hasn't survived through millennia, but which has been shown to be mistaken about basic "facts" within its own framework (relativity, flat earth theory, Ptolemaic/geocentricism, etc).  This is not to say that the 'ancients' were not mistaken or inaccurate about a great many things - they were, but to "throw  out the baby with the bathwater" - something you seem too willing to do, is folly. Surely you must see this.

EDIT - Forget what I said above about 'dualism'. It's completely obvious what you mean with it, given the context of the debate.

Even if i read some of your authors, I don't think they are going to address these points (I may be wrong, however). I don't want to be assaulted with huge slabs of traditonal writing, if i'm wrong I would like to be shown where. If you don't know where i'm wrong, then how the hell do you know that the authors you have in mind will have adequate responses to the epistemological and metaphysical issues i'm raising against traditional metaphysics? Your approach is just dogmatic then.

Not to "pick sides" here (haha, I trust we're not in grade school), but I couldn't resist picking up on this point. This view is problematic. "Unless you tell me exactly which things I need to read, to the frigging page number, I'm not going to read a damn thing". There is no consideration for the fact that reading entire books, series of books, authors, acquainting oneself with the surrounding traditions, etc. will enable a fuller understanding of what is being communicated. This betrays an unwillingness to put ass on seat and just read, read, read. And possibly even get out and speak to people who have knowledge on these matters (very few today, unfortunately).

Cargest is correct - after the initial exchange of ideas, you two began talking past each other, because of the lack of common language (I'm not talking about English), and the differing assumptions of the debate. Etiquette of disagreement is important. I don't mean the superficial "don't swear at those you disagree with"; it's more important to have a basic assumption which you can agree on, than to have long arguments which will never be resolved, and in which both parties learn nothing, because the fundamental assumption(s) of the debate are not laid down and agreed upon.

Ironically, this is something the 'wise' of 'the past' used to insist upon when engaging in debates ("Tradition" Hah! ;)) . This is too often ignored on the internet. I think the lack of face-to-face interaction has a lot to do with this. Not to mention the ease of firing off a quick salvo with the deadly keyboard-broadsword.

Interzone / Re: What have you been reading lately?
« on: September 23, 2012, 06:17:46 PM »
I am re-reading The Arabian Nights. I read them in my youth and they have taken on a new life as I see them through older eyes.

I've never actually read the text (though most of use know of accounts of the the popular tales). Shall have to give that a go at some point. Can you recommend a good english translation (bonus if they have the arabic text as well ;))

"Lord of the Rings" and "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by John Damascene

I've recently re-read Lord of the Rings as well. I keep finding new and hidden meaning where I least expected it. Whether Tolkien intended anything other than a mythology, or "invented history" with his works (he frequently claimed he didn't) is unknown; he certainly praised a certain type of...nature (I think is the right word) in his mythology.

To this end, I've been (re)reading his The Silmarillion to understand the basis for what he writes about in the more well-know LoTR books. Interesting reading so far. There is certainly more to this than what fatty Jackson's movies have shown. And I don't (only) mean that in the superficial sense (i.e. "the movie doesn't have events x y and z in it),

I do not think Tolkien ever claimed that. If he did claim that he was writing a mythology, you are dimishing the importance of mythology. You may find his "Letters" insightful in this regard. At the very least he disliked allegory and his work is not an allegory in any way. Nonetheless Tolkien was concious of the fact that LOTR was a profoundly Catholic work (Sorry to burst anyones bubble here). Moreover, he does point out that the main theme of the work is about God's right to grant power and glory. How LOTR was shaped by Tolkiens Catholicism (yes, he was pious Catholic) is less explicit than one might expect but it is nonetheless a reality when one begins to dig deep into LOTR.

Might I also recommend The Road to Middel Earth by T.A. Shippey

I think you've misunderstood what I said. I did not intend to 'diminish' the importance of the purpose of a mythology; perhaps my wording indicated  otherwise. Also, Tolkien claimed his work was free of allegory (you mention this) - that's what I said. I'm not sure where exactly the miscommunication comes from. It may be that Tolkien never used the word "mythology" - his story clearly resembles one, in my view.

The Christian-ness (and specifically Catholic-ness) of Tolkien's works is a tricky one. On the one hand, like you've mentioned, the central concept is there, especially when one considers the origin of Arda (Earth) in his mythology. On the other, Tolkien (in one of his letters to Milton Waldman), talks about  his disappointment with England's literary history of the mythological (that word again)/fable variety. He mentions a chief grievance: "it (English fairy-tales) is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion." In this same letter, he elaborates quite a bit on what he intended with his literature, and it seems he was more concerned with creating a unique legend that was English and more generally, 'North Western' and 'Celtic', which could rival the great mythologies and legendary tales of the Scandinavian, Greek, Germanic varieties. Of course, his Catholicism may be deeply tied into this relation with his homeland.

Before this thread turns into a Tolkien fanboy club: I've also been reading a lot of alt-right stuff at the moment. Amerika.org is the obvious example, but there are a few others out there. I recently read all the articles (there ain't many) at nihil.org in one sitting (like a book). Lucid writing, and it reveals something at the core of the Anusian nihilist philosopy.

Interzone / Re: What is 'Wisdom', anyway?
« on: September 21, 2012, 09:00:21 PM »
Wouldn't Plato himself say that education and the quest for wisdom is a shedding of illusions, and not at all an accumulation?  I would say that wisdom is attained more through subtraction than addition.  One of the ways that wisdom is manifested is in getting rid of time wasters in your life for instance.  Wisdom is like what's left over after you get rid of all the crap.  That's my stab at it.

From what I know of crow's stance (I don't think he has directly stated it in this thread), it's pretty similar to what you're saying above. You could say: it's the removal and stripping away of illusions, but this is an accumulation in the sense that as "time passes", you gain more wisdom of what is illusory, and what is not. Again - I might be trying to unnecessarily mess with semantics here.

Interzone / Re: What is 'Wisdom', anyway?
« on: September 21, 2012, 07:28:51 PM »
Attaining wisdom is what one seeks to do before one has any.
I would have assumed that to be obvious, but I often assume that, only to discover...

I think there's also the connotation that wisdom is not a full-stop that can be 'attained', but 'accrued' until death stops the worldly 'accrual'. Maybe that's just me thinking about the meaning of words too carefully.

So, what I'm always interested in when people talk about wisdom, is: how does one recognize the wise? Many claim to have gained wisdom, and usually when they are relatively young, we can safely ignore them. However, for the more likely candidates, what exactly are the hallmarks of the wise? This is important: if those who have it want to share wisdom, for the rest to receive it, we must be able to distinguish between charlatan and sage.

Metal / Re: Wishlist for new SUMMONING album
« on: September 20, 2012, 07:33:04 PM »
I say, stick to the long melody style of Oath Bound, but vary the song structure. Its seems such powerful music is hindered by the formulaic approach to when melodies come in and leave, it usually happens the same way in every song, not just on Oath Bound either but throughout Summoning's life.

You could call it "formulaic" (this seems to be a common description and complaint), or you could see it as "structured" and "layered". To me, Summoning seems almost obsessed with this concept of layering, and yes, they are "formulaic" in their manner of applying it. Again, I would argue that this is completely intentional, and not due to lack of alternative ideas (which is what people usually associate with the term 'formulaic'). Read more about this here.

Interzone / Re: Anti-Obesity = Homophobia according to Obese Shmuck
« on: September 20, 2012, 07:23:03 PM »
There is a lot of potential hilarity locked away in this leftist religion of victimology. Anomalous sexual orientation is in a victim's pecking order competition with feminism; feminism with race; race with morphological defect folks; obese people with retards; retards with people of questionable immigration status. This is a powder keg waiting to blow that could discredit the liberal left forever. A handful of incendiary loudmouths could set it off.

I don't get the link between retards and illegal immigrants. Otherwise, yeah, sounds like the crazed categorizations of a typical leftist...

Interzone / Re: New Layout
« on: September 20, 2012, 07:20:22 PM »
Maybe it's just me, but I've notice the thread/forum navigation links no longer appear at the top of a thread? So you have to use your browser's back button. Kind sucks, but okay.

Interzone / Re: What have you been reading lately?
« on: September 20, 2012, 07:16:54 PM »
I am re-reading The Arabian Nights. I read them in my youth and they have taken on a new life as I see them through older eyes.

I've never actually read the text (though most of use know of accounts of the the popular tales). Shall have to give that a go at some point. Can you recommend a good english translation (bonus if they have the arabic text as well ;))

"Lord of the Rings" and "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by John Damascene

I've recently re-read Lord of the Rings as well. I keep finding new and hidden meaning where I least expected it. Whether Tolkien intended anything other than a mythology, or "invented history" with his works (he frequently claimed he didn't) is unknown; he certainly praised a certain type of...nature (I think is the right word) in his mythology.

To this end, I've been (re)reading his The Silmarillion to understand the basis for what he writes about in the more well-know LoTR books. Interesting reading so far. There is certainly more to this than what fatty Jackson's movies have shown. And I don't (only) mean that in the superficial sense (i.e. "the movie doesn't have events x y and z in it),

Interzone / Re: High IQ / Dysfunction link.
« on: September 20, 2012, 07:02:55 PM »
I agree that the scenario could occur, and that current trends show something similar to what you're describing may happen, especially in a country like America (is there any other?).

But as you pointed out, it is not ideal. Interesting link to the Ottoman sub-system. Similar systems were in place in many Islamic caliphates of the past. I think why those had some semblance of stability was because the minority (or in the case of the Ottaman millat, non-Turkic) groups were small (mostly), and more importantly, far removed from the effects of the ruling class. In other words, in the absence of globalization, autonomy while being part of a larger societal structure was real autonomy, and not just freedom to trade, drink, and be merry, which is basically the autonomy sovereign states experience today.

Interzone / Re: High IQ / Dysfunction link.
« on: September 19, 2012, 08:55:40 PM »
Well, it's pretty self-evident that a degree of intelligence far beyond the norm will isolate you socially. I guess the distinction between dysfunction and social awkwardness/remoteness then comes into play. I'm not sure it would be a major issue in a society which didn't aim to replace all meaningful human relations with trivial socialization. At least, such high IQ types would be regarded as strange, but encouraged to use their IQ towards greatness (the great composers, philosophers, etc spring to mind). If they were in the "extremely high" range, you would hope your eugenics was good enough to produce enough similar individuals to prevent total isolation. However, since it isn't an exact science, uber-intelligent "freak" types (150+) could always occur, and they would most likely be completely isolated, "unstable" of you will. So be it.

I'm not sure why you think it's possible that different ethnic groups would be able to build/maintain a lasting civilization. I'm not sure that a ruling class of high IQ individuals would be able to prevent the type of problems we know are inherent to multiculturalism. The absence of democracy in this scenario would simply remove political power from the lower strata; however, revolutions and the like are still possible without it. Of course, if everyone is on the same ideological page, no worries. We know that this is never the case, and ideology varies between class, caste, ethnic group, religious affiliation etc, quite fundamentally.

I'm struggling to find a plausible scenario where this would work.

Interzone / Re: Attention "nihilists"
« on: April 05, 2012, 08:40:25 PM »
I'm not sure about others here, but I think religion is one of the best methods of education.  An entire culture and way of being can be distilled into simple fictional representations and, in this form, can be disseminated to younger generations, that they might learn to maintain the values of their ancestors.  Much of the problems facing the modern West would have been averted had Christianity managed to keep itself strong in the face of encroaching materialism.

I agree, and would go further and state that very few sane, healthy and upright civilizations have ever existed without some religious/spiritual backbone. If we look at it historically, never mind 'nihilistically', previous successful societies have always placed some degree of reverence for religion and spirituality. That is not to say that these religions/spiritual systems were completely accurate descriptions of reality; however they tended to give a society a center . Directionless humans were few and far between. There were other factors involved in this (of course), but religion/spirituality played a major role and it is a mistake to think otherwise.

Interzone / Re: Is there a bit of this degenerate in all of us?
« on: April 02, 2012, 09:23:29 PM »
Is it just me, or is it saddening that we live in a society in which human garbage like this stays alive for months (years?) after creating her blog? Seriously - any society worth living in would have fucking killed this bitch by now just to remove every trace of her from the earth. It would probably involve lots of pain and torture. A fitting end.

As for her psychology: does it matter? She is clearly disturbed in multiple ways; her mind is overthrown. Sure, she may not be the cut-and-dry child abuse case; however her alleged aspie-nature and "knowledge" of physics is completely irrelevant. Claiming that her psyche is some sort of extreme which is present in all females is laughable: this diseased organism bears no resemblance to the ideal archetypal female nature, found less and less in today's times (though still present and worth praising). I seriously think less will be gained by trying to analyse why exactly she is as fucked up as she is, and more will be gained by tracking her down and slaughtering her. And then posting that on the internet. Hopefully with a brief article about how modernity has produced wrecks like her, why it's good that she no longer exists, and lots of links to ANUS :-)

Also, agreed: she is vile and disgusting. Anyone seriously aroused by this needs fucking cleansing. Bare-knuckle box a 6-foot nigga or something. Your spirit needs cleansing.

That society would certainly target you, and most of us as well. Have a good day sir.

Why would it "certainly" target me, and most of "us"?

Anyway, if it did decide I was waste, then so be it; submitting to a larger order makes sense whether you're a drain-cleaner, a  leader in your community, and everything 'between', 'below', and 'above'. In a sane society, every individual has its role. The role of this "woman" (I hesitate to use the term) should be as an example of bad breeding and degenerate child-rearing methods. And how best to deal with such unfortunate occurrences.

A good day I shall have indeed, sir.

Metal / Re: Burzum - Umskiptar
« on: April 02, 2012, 08:21:01 PM »
Does it mean I was never truly a Burzum fan if I simply gave up on him after Hliðskjálf? Seriously, I don't even bother anymore. The entity that was Burzum died in prison as far as I can tell. There may be something there...but is it really worth 10 ruinous albums discovering if it's still there?

Cargest's stuff is way better. Seriously. More spirit than Burzum has mustered for his last three albums.

[1] 2 ... 5